Best Stories About People You Don't Like
Aleph Press
A note someone made in the P/C C/P thread made me think. It's easy to
talk about stories about characters you like. I like Q stories I wouldn't
give the time of day to if they were about Chakotay. But what's really,
really impressive is stories you like about characters you don't. That
takes work!
So, what are the stories you most like about characters you normally
don't like at all?
I'll start:
I am so bored by Crusher, it isn't funny. Troi intrigues me more (Troi
has potentil, which is never realized; in my eyes Crusher is just
boring.) But I was blown away by the P/C work of Merlin Missy, aka
Melissa Wilson. In particular, "Graduation" was awesome (and that one
also makes a credible character out of Wesley-the-god, something I don't
mind but many people despise). But others include "Part Heaven" and
"Reflections In Blue" and "To Every Purpose" (all of which are at the
archive in story/tng.)
I also find Chakotay to be the second most boring character alive. But
aside from the Talking Stick/Circle tales of Macedon and Pegeel, which I
must rave about every chance I get and which were totally awesome
portrayals of both Chakotay and Janeway, I must also mention my fondness
for Siubhan's "The Left Hand of Madness." It was the genderbending that
got me to read the story, even though it was a C/P and I'd already
decided Chakotay bored me, but it was the characters-- including
Chakotay-- that hooked me.
So. What stories do you like about characters you hate?
--
No sig today. Sig tomorrow. There's always a sig tomorrow.
Alara Rogers, Aleph Press
al...@netcom.com
All Aleph Press stories are at http://www.mindspring.com/~alara/ajer.
Pegeel
Alara says:
>But what's really,
>really impressive is stories you like about characters you don't. That
>takes work!
>
That's a hard one for me: I don't read much of the characters/shows I *do*
like, these days, due to lack of time. I almost never read the ones outside my
own interest set unless I have a particular reason to do so--like I've been
begged by a friend to look over something, or that it's come highly
recommended.
That said: pre-existing bias, but I enjoyed Macedon and J's DS9 "Orfeo"
trilogy. As I could care less about most of the DS9 folks, and even less about
Jake, that's an accomplishment.
I'm worn out on most TOS stuff: was before I ever showed up here. It was the
first show I loved, and for me it's still the "standard" by which all the other
shows are judged, but after thirty years of following the crew in
re--runs,movies, profic, and fanfic...so sue me. I'm just plain whipped on
them. But Killa's "Bitter Glass" is gorgeous enough to make me care again, as
is "Beside the Wells." (I'm embarassed, and cranky, and cannot today remember
which screen nom-de-plume the author used. But it's a knock-out story.)
Overcoming show burn-out is pretty impressive. And Greywolf usually manages to
give the old team a generous enthusiasm that reminds me of what I no longer can
summon up most days of the week.
I'm indifferent to Tom/Harry/Belanna as a general thing. Not where I get my
jollies. But Ny Martin swats some hot and sensitive ones using those three.
And, yes, Suibhan did great stuff with "Left Hand." I'm not big-time into C/P,
but can get into her material.
Again, not a big Picard/Q fan, but Alara and Mercutio both get some good
mileage in...not particular titles standing out tonight. I really am tired and
cranky, and the brain isn't responding to prompting. I think I need to be
hooked up to a table like Frankenstien's monster, and a few jolts of
zap-frizzle sent through my brain. But the "Q-whatever" material has always
amused me. Oh, I do remember one: "My Fair Jeanne."
I'll be looking forward to others' "Overcame my apathy" lists. Should prove
interesting. I find that the ones I like best are the ones that include a
level of character exploration/development beyond just leaning back and
depending on standard canonical assumptions. It becomes interesting to read as
much because it is fresh and fully fleshed out as because of the standard
"shared information" about the characters or the series itself.
Peg
Mercutio
I originally didn't like Paris. Then I read a couple of very good
Paris stories, including Paris Nocturne by Brenda Antrim, and another
story which I can't seem to find on the archive whose title I can't
remember. :) At that point, I suffered a conversion, and wrote "Even
Captains Have Needs", a J/P story. Ever since then, I've adored
Paris.
And Mourning Reprise by, I believe, Alison Martens, was an excellent
P/C. Beverly Crusher is not one of my favorite people, but Alison,
among others, has written some great Crusher stories.
---me...@europa.com---
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps
of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho
Claire
> So. What stories do you like about characters you hate?
I'm usually a lurker here, but I wanted to respond to this one.
I really didn't care for Jake Sisko all that much - he just seemed a
bit... bland. I was just totally unenthused by him. Macedon and J's
'Orfeo' trilogy made me see Jake in a whole new light. I only read it
because I loved the TS/C stories - but this one enthralled me all on its
own.
I also did not like the characters of Major Kira and Gul Dukat on DS9. I
found them both rather irritating. However, I was mildly interested in
the episode where Duakt finds Ziyal, and in reading the related fan
fiction, I was totally caught up in the notion of K/Du. I loved Serpent
and Hawk by Laura Taylor and anything by Ariana and Ariana Lilcamp,
among others.
Also, Bashir bored me - until I came across the the G/B stuff by BGM and
Kathryn Ramage. I love all of it.
So, whether everyone likes these characters or not, all the stuff I
mentioned is worth reading!
Claire
Ariana Lilcamp
I can't think of any right now about *people* I don't like, except for
Ariana's "Voices of the Prophets". I am NOT a Sisko fan, but that one made
me enjoy and believe in the S/Du couple.
Now, couples I don't like or didn't believe... TJ's "Unicorn" brought
Spock and McCoy to me very nicely. I wouldn't've thunk it :) K/S, matter
of fact ... oh, who *was* it that converted me there... I b'lieve Greywolf
got there first. Before him, I thought of them as a strictly romantic
relationship, not a sexual one. That's just how I saw someone like Spock
forming a relationship, outside pon farr -- on the level of the mind.
That seemed like what would be precious to him, and better pure... even if
it meant they both had empty physical relationships on the side, Kirk more
than Spock. (Yeah, yeah, I'm pretty deeply into Pern :) ) But Greywolf
and a couple others convinced me that there could indeed be a physical
level.
Out of DS9... BGM converted me to G/B. I had previously been a strict
J/J'er, so that was a stretch. She cannot make me dislike Ziyal, though
:) I unfortunately can't think of any specific titles right now... it
wasn't a particular one, it was a *bunch* of them that I read all in a
row. O/K... Cannot remember the name. Ah, my amnesia is *really*
beginning to strike now. The story was about seven parts, including a
substantial section on Bajor... does "Riptide" sound right to anyone?
Voyager... I don't read much of it, but a story from last spring stands
out. Title was something like Lost and Found? Involved Janeway,
Chakotay, Paris, and Torres (IIRC) being suddenly removed from the ship
and left in a system of caves to attempt to conserve heat, by some J/C and
P/T-loving greater power who rearranged everything, including rock, to
pair them off together. Someone want to point me to this story? I'd like
to reread it.
That's all for now... I'll post if I think of anything more, say, some
actual names. :)
Ariana Lilcamp
--
"I prefer to cope with my disasters one at a time!" -- Anne McCaffrey (F'lar in _The White Dragon_)
Remove .ns to reply in email.
Melange428
Alara wrote:
<<So, what are the stories you most like about characters you normally don't
like at all?>>
I hate P/T.
I mean, the thought revolts me. The sight revolts me, actually. I know it's
primarily the writing...and I do like both Robbie McNeill and Roxann
Dawson...but P/T? No. Get it off! Show me J/C!
But I have to come out and admit publicly that I really, really enjoyed
Dangermom's "Daybreak" series. Enough to read it twice.
Give it a shot if you hate the puerile writing of P/T on VOY as much as I do.
You may be pleasantly surprised.
Someone make me like Harry Kim now?
Melissa B
geoffrey2
I've never seen Voyager, and I've never read a Janeway story that made me
like her character, but last year I read a story called "A Trill's Gift"
that really worked for me. It was a piece of Janeway/Jadzia slash. There
were 4 parts, but I inadvertently lost part 3 so if anyone has it please
send it to me.
I can't stand Christine Chapel, and usually don't even bother to read
stories that feature her, but Twelfth Night kept my attention to the end
and I have reread it at least once.
Also, as others have mentioned in response to this thread, the Jake/Salene
stuff stands on its own. I've only seen Jake once or twice on TV, and
don't know much about him, but I like this series of stories.
Excellent question... made me think. -- Geoffrey
Katie Redshoes
al...@netcom.com (Aleph Press) wrote:
>
>So, what are the stories you most like about characters you normally
>don't like at all?
Well, up till last spring, after 30 years of being a Trek fan, I was
fairly blase about all Trek in general -- until I read Brenda Antrim's
goofy "Party at Vachon's" and became intrigued enough by her
description of Tom Paris to start watching the show again -- and was
immediately hooked. But I didn't *dislike* Paris before that -- just
was generally indifferent.
OTOH, I didn't much care for B'Elanna Torres until I read Bantrim's
"Puberty" (well before I saw "Blood Fever") and that story by itself
turned me in a ravening P/Ter.
Didn't much care for Chakotay until I read Macedon and Peg's "Talking
Stick/Circle," which put me on the J/C bandwagon.
Didn't think much of Harry Kim until I read Envoy's series of Kim
stories starting with "Numb" and J.C. Sun's lyrical little Kim
vignettes, starting, I think, with "Ache." (Though I still don't buy
K/T.)
Hated Owen Paris until I read Anne Wasserman's "Letter to an Absent
Son" -- and Margaret Berger's "Closing In" made me break down and cry
for the man.
Didn't care particularly for Miles O'Brien until I read Diavolessa's
"Nothing Like the Sun."
I didn't like Gul Dukat at all until I read somebody's sorta K/Du
story this summer that was *rife* with tension called, umm, oh, jeez,
"Halfway" I think? Not much plot to it, as I recall -- just long,
reflective dialogue between Kira and Dukat that fascinated me to
pieces.
Didn't think much of Chekov until I read Jane Seaton and her partner's
"Friend in Need."
Had lost all respect for Kirk until I started reading Jungle Kitty's
Kirk/Brandt series. Yow.
I'm still looking for the story that will turn me around on Beverly
Crusher that will make me salivate for P/C, or the story that will
make me like Jadzia Dax or Odo. Suggestions, anyone?
My, I'm feeling chatty this morning. It's nice sharing a list of
favorites.
----
Katie Redshoes
reds...@NOJUNKix.netcom.com
(when replying, remove "NOJUNK"from address first)
Brave but stupid
In article <alephEn...@netcom.com>,
al...@netcom.com (Aleph Press) wrote:
>
> A note someone made in the P/C C/P thread made me think. It's easy to
> talk about stories about characters you like. I like Q stories I wouldn't
> really impressive is stories you like about characters you don't. That
> takes work!
Brave but stupid because I'm the one who wrote the original comment. Yes,
I'm still around; if being mail-bombed and flamed from here to the Delta
Quadrant won't get rid of me, what will? :)
I don't like P/C not because I hate Crusher; it's just that I don't find
her an attractive romantic heroine. She's the head of the medical
department on Starfleet's flagship; I'd like to see her act like it
sometimes. My favourite Crusher stories have nothing to do with Picard,
or sex; they're the ones where she proves why she was chosen for such an
important position. If I was going to join Crusher up with
someone....well, I wouldn't. She just IMO (IMO!!!!!) doesn't really fit
with any of the TNG characters in that way. Again, in my opinion!!! :)
(sound of eggshells breaking under my feet)
I'm not fond of Bashir, but I liked (Ariana's?) "Healer", and I enjoyed
the Plaidder G/B stories and (Liz North's?) "Snakecharmer" also. Jake
isn't my favourite character either, not because I don't like him but
because he's IMO underwritten. But the Salene stories are brilliant. (So
what am I writing? A Jake story.)
(NOTE: HERESY ON ITS WAY) I'm not terribly fond of McCoy, but I've read a
few good stories about him, including "No Man" by raku.
I have some of the same problems with Janeway as a romantic character as
I do with Crusher. Yes, I can see the character in a relationship, but I
personally wouldn't be interested in the details. I'd like to read more
about her command decisions than her romantic ones. Maybe the problem is
that I don't like vulnerable women much, and vulnerability has always
been a big thing with Trek women. I prefer women who are strong, not just
on the outside but inside too. Sometimes romances tend to make characters
more vulnerable than I want them to be.
Oh, and I like Neelix. (Gotta get the flame bait in somewhere!) I REALLY
like Neelix.
Charlene
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Owl and Pussycat
>Oh, and I like Neelix. (Gotta get the flame bait in somewhere!) I REALLY
>like Neelix.
>
>Charlene
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
That's okay. I REALLY like Quark. Try to explain something like *that* to
a non-trek-indulgent husband...
FlashPoint
Anslem
Charlene wrote:
>Oh, and I like Neelix. (Gotta get the flame bait in somewhere!) I REALLY
>like Neelix.
Sorry you are definately not alone on that one. I too love Neelix. After
mortal coil who couldn't?
BTW- good idea suggesting this conversation.
Anslem
Carole Lynn Mckinney
Ariana Lilcamp (thiss...@uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Voyager... I don't read much of it, but a story from last spring stands
: out. Title was something like Lost and Found? Involved Janeway,
: Chakotay, Paris, and Torres (IIRC) being suddenly removed from the ship
: and left in a system of caves to attempt to conserve heat, by some J/C and
: P/T-loving greater power who rearranged everything, including rock, to
: pair them off together. Someone want to point me to this story? I'd like
: to reread it.
I wrote a Lost and Found, but that's not it. I remember reading that one
you mention, though, and it was very interesting! Don't recall the title
or anything. But your mention of caves made me bring up L. R. Bowen's
Voyager story "The Snow Queen." This made me adore two Voy pairings I
usually loathe... C/P and J/P, to be precise. I'm usually a devout
J/C'er, when it comes to fanfic.
I have to jump in line and endorse the G/B (Garak/Bashir) remarks made
earlier in the thread. While I don't like Garak or Bashir much on TV, I
enjoy reading the G/B stuff that has been mentioned here on the thread.
If I were challenging, I'd challenge somebody to write a story that makes
me like Harry Kim. I have yet to see a story that made him interesting
to me. The closest has been Siubhan dressing him up as Marilyn Monroe--
that one got a laugh out of me. I can't remember the title, sorry.
Oh, and while I'm at it I can't leave out Killa, who makes K/S quite
sultry though I never have seen them as a sexual pairing.
:)
--
... Cara Lilith MacRae ####
... Aes Sedai of the Blue Ajah #######
.... "The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills. #######
....... Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time." ####
....... http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/c/clmckinn/www/index.html ###
.... JANEWAY AND NOBODY, EVER!!!!!!!! ###
Seen on usenet:
BERMAN: Mr. Braga will write [Star Trek IX] any way he wants to.
PILLER: Are you nuts? He couldn't write himself out of a 'Berenstein
Bear' book.
--Lord Tlerll of alt.os.tlerll
ARM
Let's see...
I have never been a fan of K/T, but I loved Laura William's "Everyone
Comes to Sandrine's". I am a P/T and C/P fan although I do think that
K/7 might have some potential, but I can't usually picture K/T even in
fanfic. For that matter, I limited my slash reading and writing to G/B
until I found Siubhan. (I have since found tons of good C/P writers.)
I am only a casual J/C fan, but I always read stories by YCD,
Voywriter, and Laura Williams.
I don't usually read P/K, but I make an exception for R'rain and "Emma
Woodhouse".
Karen Colohan got me started on G/B. (I came across "Getting Away From
It All" and "A Taste for Vengeance", and they were so good and...)
I don't read much Odo fanfic unless it is written by OdoGoddess or
Carolyn Fulton.
BGM can make any pairing work.
Macedon's and J's "Orfeo" series is excellent and I don't usually read
Jake stories. Loften is talented and the character can be fun to watch,
but I never had the desire to read about him in fanfic.
ARM
PS Please excuse any typos. I injured my hand last week and am having
trouble typing.
Zepp Weasel
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:38:11 GMT, merc...@europa.com (Mercutio)
wrote:
Well, let's see. Being as I am a furvert, and a rabid fan of P/Q,
most P/C stuff bores me spitless -- and then I ran across Ruth's
little gem, "Hieros Gamos" -- Wooh!!! Yowza, pant, drool... Hot
stuff, y'all. I still prefer P/Q to P/C, but I now must admit that in
the hands of the proper writer, our Bev can be quite... titillating.
;-)>
Likewise, Troi usually bores me to death. I only ever liked a couple
of the episodes with her in them -- the one where she wakes up and
finds she's a Romulan comes to mind. But there was a story called
"With Me In Your Mind" <sorry, forgot who wrote it> in which Troi and
Picard wind up goin' at it hot an' heavy -- and man, that was one
*hot* little story. So I had to grudgingly admit that Troi wasn't a
*total* bore...
I like Sisko quite a bit, but never found him particularly sexy, until
I read "Even Heroes Need A Night", in which he and Li Nalas have a
little fling -- and mmm, that was *good*.
So, ya never know, till ya read it, that's what I say nowadays...
Greywolf the Wanderer
<email me at grey...@snowcrest.net, not here, eh?>
Katie Redshoes
cpad...@idt.net (Marlissa Campbell) wrote:
[snip]
>
>Someone else mentioned 'Halfway', but couldn't remember the author --
>that is another one of Ariana's.
That would be me, and thanks for both confirming the story title and
reminding me who wrote it. It was a marvelous story, Ariana, and my
apologies in case I never wrote and told you so! As well as, like I
mentioned, completely changed my mind about Dukat...
Aleph Press
Brave but stupid (cvic...@internorth.com) wrote:
: Brave but stupid because I'm the one who wrote the original comment. Yes,
: I'm still around; if being mail-bombed and flamed from here to the Delta
: Quadrant won't get rid of me, what will? :)
Good for you!
: I don't like P/C not because I hate Crusher; it's just that I don't find
: her an attractive romantic heroine. She's the head of the medical
: department on Starfleet's flagship; I'd like to see her act like it
: sometimes. My favourite Crusher stories have nothing to do with Picard,
: or sex; they're the ones where she proves why she was chosen for such an
: important position. If I was going to join Crusher up with
: someone....well, I wouldn't. She just IMO (IMO!!!!!) doesn't really fit
: with any of the TNG characters in that way. Again, in my opinion!!! :)
: (sound of eggshells breaking under my feet)
I would prefer to see more stories about any of the female characters
outside of a romantic context. We get plenty of the men not being
romantic in the series, so the prevalence of romance stories about them
doesn't bother me too too much; but the fact that the series has a major
hole in it, that women rarely get anything to do (particularly TNG
women!), and few fanfic writers are filling in the gaps, bugs me.
: I have some of the same problems with Janeway as a romantic character as
: I do with Crusher. Yes, I can see the character in a relationship, but I
: personally wouldn't be interested in the details. I'd like to read more
: about her command decisions than her romantic ones. Maybe the problem is
: that I don't like vulnerable women much, and vulnerability has always
: been a big thing with Trek women. I prefer women who are strong, not just
: on the outside but inside too. Sometimes romances tend to make characters
: more vulnerable than I want them to be.
The difference, I think, between Janeway and Crusher is that the series
portrays Janeway as Iron Mom; she's tough, she's in control and she's
always right. We *don't* get to see Janeway being vulnerable. Not as
often as we see Picard being vulnerable, not as often as we see Kirk
being vulnerable. (Sisko isn't vulnerable too often either.) My big thing
is to explore the vulnerability of strong characters; the strength must
be there, but if a character is nothing but strength, it turns me off.
That being said, there are few het romance stories that read like good
slash, and I don't know why. Good slash (because slash is same-sex, and
therefore doesn't easily fall into stereotypes of man-woman itneractions)
can give us powerful, emotional romances where *both* characters are
strong *and* vulnerable. (Bad slash tends to make one character a wussy,
swooning thing, as if the writer couldn't imagine romance outside the
paradigm of "Big Strong Man sweeps Emotional Sensitive Woman off her
feet" and just transposed that onto two men.) But surprisingly, most het
romance *does* fall into this sterotype, and I don't know why.
I'd prefer reading het to slash, because I like women and I like women
characters and I want to read about them, but so many romance stories
wussify their women.
Hmm! There's another thread for me! :-)
Marlissa Campbell
zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel) wrote:
>Likewise, Troi usually bores me to death. I only ever liked a couple
>of the episodes with her in them -- the one where she wakes up and
>finds she's a Romulan comes to mind. But there was a story called
>"With Me In Your Mind" <sorry, forgot who wrote it> in which Troi and
>Picard wind up goin' at it hot an' heavy -- and man, that was one
>*hot* little story. So I had to grudgingly admit that Troi wasn't a
>*total* bore...
<nods in agreement> The author of 'With Me In Your Mind' was Ariana.
I just read this one today for the first time, and I must say it is
*very* good -- and gave me a lot of insight into Troi's ...um,
*appeal*.
Someone else mentioned 'Halfway', but couldn't remember the author --
that is another one of Ariana's.
Thinking of Ariana's web page also puts me in mind of a wonderful
series of stories about *Damar* which she has listed there. These are
by Katany, aka Christine Collins (she writes under both names), and
are absolutely *fabulous*. I always thought of Damar as nothing more
than Dukat's not-very-talented side-kick... But Christine has totally
turned me around. She hasn't posted any of them here, but if I've
managed to tempt you into checking them out, Ariana has them listed
with synopses and links at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ariane
('With Me In Your Mind' and 'Halfway are there too; and no, Ariana
didn't bribe me to rave about her stories and page ;))
>So, ya never know, till ya read it, that's what I say nowadays...
<nods again in 100% agreement>
But even more than some stories simply momentarily catching my
interest in a previously (IMO) unispiring character, I have to credit
the ability of certain fan fic stories to change my view of the
character completely. I'll never see Damar the same way again, and
some other examples follow:
As others have mentioned, I would also like to credit Macedon's
'Orfeo' (and indeed the whole series of Jake/Salene stories) with
changing my attitude towards Jake Sisko. And I must thank Terrie
Drummonds's 'Blasphemer' for making Keiko & Miles O'Brien appeal to me
for the first time.
And speaking of blasphemy... I was never all that keen on Bashir --
nothing incendiary intended, please forgive me. But -- although I'm
still not a tremendous slash fan, in general terms -- many of the G/B
stories I've read are so *good* they've really made me watch the
nuances of the interactions between those two. There are so many
great G/B writers, it's hard to choose any particular story, but
*anything* by Arcady or Kit Ramage would do the trick.
Marlissa
Gabrielle Lawson
Brave but stupid wrote:
> I'm not fond of Bashir, but I liked (Ariana's?) "Healer", and I enjoyed
Not if it's a fairly recent "Healer" and it's not a romance. If it's the
sequel to "The Quickening" then it's mine (Gabrielle Lawson) and I'm glad to
hear you liked it despite your lack of fondness for Bashir.
Sorry to say, I can't really join into this thread. I don't have time to read
any stories about characters I don't like and, for personal preference, I stay
away from anything labeled R or NC-17 and most things with romance codes. I
envy people who seem to have enough time to read every story posted to the
group. Lucky devils.
--
--Gabrielle
Mhollihan
On >Mon, Jan 26, 1998 00:16 EST, al...@netcom.com (Aleph Press) wrote:
>I would prefer to see more stories about any of the female characters
>outside of a romantic context. We get plenty of the men not being
>romantic in the series, <SNIP>
>that women rarely get anything to do (particularly TNG
>women!), and few fanfic writers are filling in the gaps, bugs me.
>
>
I second that one, Alara! Peg/Macedon's TS/C series helped with that, although
it was still a character exploration and an attempt to reimagine VOY. Also,
Capt. Suzanne Brandt (the TrekSmut (c) character, by
I-can't-remember-her-name-as-I-write-this-and-and-I-am-so-embarassed) is a
dynamic, well-written and imagined character. It would be tremendous fun to
read about her "black ops" team in a story one day.
Can anyone recommend/point out other stories or characters?
Mike Hollihan
Memphis, TN
Pegeel
Alara says:
>That being said, there are few het romance stories that read like good
>slash, and I don't know why. Good slash (because slash is same-sex, and
>therefore doesn't easily fall into stereotypes of man-woman itneractions)
>can give us powerful, emotional romances where *both* characters are
>strong *and* vulnerable. (Bad slash tends to make one character a wussy,
>swooning thing, as if the writer couldn't imagine romance outside the
>paradigm of "Big Strong Man sweeps Emotional Sensitive Woman off her
>feet" and just transposed that onto two men.) But surprisingly, most het
>romance *does* fall into this sterotype, and I don't know why.
>
>I'd prefer reading het to slash, because I like women and I like women
>characters and I want to read about them, but so many romance stories
>wussify their women.
>
Alara, I'd really like to comment on this one, as it's something I've thought
about a lot in the last few years.
At the risk of being outrageously presumptuous, I think you've got the right
gut reactions and observations, but are putting them together slightly askew.
You commented that, by avoiding cross-gender role assumptions, slash is able to
provide powerful romances where both characters are strong *and* vulnerable.
True enough. You then go on to say that most het romance falls into the
predictable patterns. Also true enough--however you at least seem to be
implying that the patterns are not there in slash.
I'd have to disagree with that. In all but a very few works I've read--and I
do read slash even though it isn't my first-choice trip, as I find it
interesting--anyway, in all but a few peices the classic strong/weak,
contained/vulnerable, emotionally needy/nurturing maternal-paternal, yadda,
yadda, yadda exist, as do the traditional "Romance formula" motifs including
most of those of hurt-comfort, seduction, passionate conquest...all the old
warhorses are there in slash, as they are in het.
You don't buy it? You know when you read slash none of it looks the same?
Tell you what: try two experiments. First see if, in the first few pages of a
slash work, you can detach yourself from the text and quickly identify which
character is playing a "traditional" male role, and which is playing a
traditional "female" role. Then read the rest of the work and see if *on
average* the role plays out consistently over the work. Unless "wobbles" are a
major element of the work, you have to play fair, though, and go by the
averages, as minor fluctuations occur even in the most mind-dulling formula het
Romance. In most instances I've been able to nail the "fem-fella" roles in
slash pieces--and then seen them hold together over the duration of the piece.
If you're having trouble with that, try another experiment: take one of the two
characters, and do a gender bender on them: for He-him-Picard, insert
She-her-Felicity. Then try it with the other character--in most instances you
*quickly* find that one character will flip roles, and instantly fall into a
"Traditional Romance" female role pattern as soon as identified as female...and
the other will resist it in the face of all efforts to make the switch,
demanding the right to play a "Traditional Romance" male role.
In short, I think most (though not all) slash falls back on classic Romance
formula and dramatic roles and functions. The names and genders change--the
formula remains intact.
So why doesn't it read that way? Because, as you said, the shift in character
paradigm eliminates a familiar context, and makes old tricks look new, and old
roles look radically innovative.
I had an interesting exchange with Macedon on this subject a few years back,
and one of the more useful observations I came up with was this:
If you have a scene in which Tom Paris storms into Chakotay's room, exposes
Chakotay's agony and his dysfunctions, demands that he shape up and pull his
life together, then in great emotional anguish declares that he's being torn
apart by Chakotay's behavior, and concludes by stating passionately, "Damn it,
I love you", with a brief but passionate terminal kiss and an exit in high
dudgeon...
If Tom does this in a slash story he's "confrontational", he's "assertive",
he's "strong but vulnerable." He's perceptive, he's sensitive, he's
whatever...
If "he's" named Felicity Tempest, and he does *exactly* the same thing, the
reader can and does instantly identify "her" as "tempestuous, overwrought, and
(shudder) spunky." A classic bodice ripper heroine behaving precisely and
frustratingly as expected. Pure formula, pure gender-role cliche.
A male slash character is never doomed to being spunky unless the writer is
*abysmally* dreadful, or is a fairly good comic writer camping up the routine
on purpose. Why? Because our own cultural and literary assumptions do cut in
with cross-gender material, and don't cut in with same-sex, particularly m/m
same sex...or not to anything like the same degree. You have to put your brain
in analysis mode to realize that the change in gender *did not* alter the
formula or the traditional role functions. The dancers have changed--the
footwork is the same, though.
By altering the gender pairing, even a fairly new writer can get away with
using very traditional material, and have it look fresh, uncliched, honest and
perceptive...
I'm not trying to insult slash writers, or their works. But when they choose
slash, they come in with a powerful advantage that het writers *do not have.*
They can use old formula material, and have it look totally and startlingly new
and complex. Where a het writer will *instantly* be nailed for trotting out
old cliches, the slash writer can use those cliches in the way they probably
*first* appeared to readers when they showed up in het-romances...as
passionate, vivid, meaningful material dealing with relationship and
life-choice.
The het writer *has* to go far beyond that if he or she wants to appear
equally insightful and non-formulaic. It takes a fair amount of work for a het
writer to take something as fundamentally patterned as a fictional courtship,
and make it anything more than formula. You have to stretch like crazy,
because it's been done a million times, in a million variations, and every
reader in the world can nail the cliches as there is no gender-twisting optical
illusion in place to hide the formula. By changing the gender, you alter the
context and the assumptions, and immediately alter the reader's response.
Leave the gender assumptions in place and you'd damned well better have
something new, provocative, or at least fresh and compelling to say about your
characters and their lives, or your readers will sigh and pitch your latest
Magnum Opus in the delete bin along with a dozen other "Love's Mortal Anguish"
rip-offs.
This is an experiment I've done several times before--I must admit never to my
complete satisfaction. (chuckle) If I'd ever done it in a way that completely
pleased me, I'd have submitted it someplace or other long since.
So, here goes:
You all are probably familiar with the fairy tale "Beauty and the Beast." See
if you can dig up a fairly complete old version--Lang, or one of the good kid's
illustrated versions that rely heavily on the old French version. Disney
doesn't count. Now, here's the first step in the experiment--as you read, turn
"Belle" into "Beau." Female lead transformed to male lead. Everything else
stays the same. Is it a different story?
Now, read it again. This time switch both Belle and the Beast. Now Belle is
Beau, and the Beast is a Beastess. Is it a different story?
Final stage--the one I've tried over and over, and never been happy with. This
one you have to at least imagine writing. It's even more informative if you
don't just run it in your head, but sit down at your keyboard and try to really
*write* the puppies.
You can now *change* any of the background details of the story. There doesn't
have to be a merchant father, a rose, a ransom, an echanted castle. What you
must have--a Belle who is now a Beau, and a male monster. And the catch that
makes the experiment abso-fuckin'-lutely brutal? Every change you make in the
story must be aimed at one goal--making your story have *exactly* the same
structural dynamic, emotional resonance, thematic value, and meaning for a
reader that the original het version of B&B has. It has to mean the same
thing, feel the same way, have the same message. You *must* try to make
changes that force "slash" to mean the same thing as "het."
Then write another version, with the same "reads like the original" goals, with
the genders fully reversed--male Beau, female Beastess. But it still has to
mean the same thing, feel the same way, evoke the same reactions from the
reader that the original version of Beauty and the Beast does. You have to
make role-reversal mean the same thing as the standard assumed arrangement.
I've found that single experiment has taught me more about formula response to
story, and to gender roles, than *any* other exploration, psych treatise, or
gender issue writing I've ever dealt with. It's also taught me a lot about how
much of what we call "cliche" is cliche only because it appears in a context we
expect it in. Take exactly the same actions, dialogue, structural dynamic,
setting, backstory, and language use, but alter just one of the standard
context parameters, and you end up with a whole new story, that *appears*
unhackneyed and novel and fresh. And it's damned near impossible to return it
to its original identifiable predictability or ever make it read the same way
once you've made those changes. Cliche exists only in a familiar context--if
we weren't so very sensitized to the gender-role assumptions of Romantic Lit,
and of our cultures, either slash would immediately be seen as often conforming
to Romance formula--or het would appear as passionate, insightful, and
non-cliched as slash does.
Again, that isn't meant as an insult to slash writers--you/they have found a
powerful and dramatically effective way to jump the fence and re-use shop-worn
assumptions in novel, moving, and inovative ways. But don't underestimate the
degree to which slash writers *do* use the formulaic Romance motifs and
roles...and don't underestimate the challenge het writers face when they
attempt to write passionate, fresh, and meaningful material *without* the
advantage of throwing away the familiar male-female context. It takes *very*
good writing indeed for a het writer to appear as non-formulaic as a slash
writer...through no particular flaw on the part of the het writer, or, I must
say, through any *great* innovative genius on the part of the slash writer.
Many of the slash writers are using the old formulas, and getting away with it
because slash itself revitalizes and alters them. Move from het to slash, and
*viola!*, everything old is new again...not because you made it new from the
ground up, but because the context changed how the reader percieves it. The
old dog has learned new tricks--but it is still often a very hoary old canine
if you strip away the novelty of the slash transformation.
(Rude comments and puns on the word "hoary" as applied to slash will be
cheerfully giggled over.)
(posted and emailed)
Peg
J. Juls
But what's really,
>really impressive is stories you like about characters you don't.
Wesley's Heroic Adventure by no...@dial.pipex.com ! No story could be more
strange, more sick, more wonderfully disgusting! And I loathe Wesley.
Julie
Aleph Press
Sorry, Peg, I'm going to have to do some major snippage.
Pegeel (peg...@aol.com) wrote:
: Alara, I'd really like to comment on this one, as it's something I've thought
: about a lot in the last few years.
: At the risk of being outrageously presumptuous, I think you've got the right
: gut reactions and observations, but are putting them together slightly askew.
: You commented that, by avoiding cross-gender role assumptions, slash is able to
: provide powerful romances where both characters are strong *and* vulnerable.
: True enough. You then go on to say that most het romance falls into the
: predictable patterns. Also true enough--however you at least seem to be
: implying that the patterns are not there in slash.
Not most of the time. Bad slash exists where Avon swoons into Roj Blake's
manly arms (so far I haven't seen anything *quite* that absurd in Trek,
although Mercutio and I parodied that kind of thing in an article that
will run in my Q zine if I EVER GET ART!!! But I digress.) But for the
most part, the extremes of the convention do not exist in slash.
: I'd have to disagree with that. In all but a very few works I've read--and I
: do read slash even though it isn't my first-choice trip, as I find it
: interesting--anyway, in all but a few peices the classic strong/weak,
: contained/vulnerable, emotionally needy/nurturing maternal-paternal, yadda,
: yadda, yadda exist, as do the traditional "Romance formula" motifs including
: most of those of hurt-comfort, seduction, passionate conquest...all the old
: warhorses are there in slash, as they are in het.
: You don't buy it? You know when you read slash none of it looks the same?
: Tell you what: try two experiments. First see if, in the first few pages of a
: slash work, you can detach yourself from the text and quickly identify which
: character is playing a "traditional" male role, and which is playing a
: traditional "female" role. Then read the rest of the work and see if *on
: average* the role plays out consistently over the work. Unless "wobbles" are a
: major element of the work, you have to play fair, though, and go by the
: averages, as minor fluctuations occur even in the most mind-dulling formula het
: Romance. In most instances I've been able to nail the "fem-fella" roles in
: slash pieces--and then seen them hold together over the duration of the piece.
I do genderbending, Peg. It's basically one of my Big Things, like BDSM
is Ruth's. And from early childhood, before I had ever *heard* of slash,
I picked up on a neat trick-- turn one of two male characters who have an
intense relationship into a woman, and write them having a relationship.
Basically, it's slash with a different twist-- instead of saying "What if
our boys were gay?" or "What if they were able to transcend gender to
admit to their love for each other?", I would say "What if one of them
was a woman, but nothing else changed?" And I found that the stories thus
created (where I would work hard to make the now-female character stay in
character for the man-that-was) were far more fascinating than any
stories about *actual* female characters. The reason for this seemed to
be that the male characters were more fully realized people to begin
with. Make one of them a woman, and suddnely you have a fully realized
woman, rare in media fandom.
So I gotta disagree with you. I've *done* this experiement (experiment
snipped-- Peg basically said "change the genders of each of the slash
couples"), and I find that either can flip, at least in the stories I
like. Try these synopses on for size:
1. Tom Paris is an ex-con seeking a second chance at redemption, but his
experiences in prison have scarred him. Can gentle, innocent Henrietta
Kim teach him to love again?
or:
2. Toni Paris was raped in prison. Used, abused and bitter, now she hides
her true feelings behind a brittle devil-may-care shell. Only Harry Kim
sees the Vulnerable woman under the tough-as-nails shell, but can even
his love for her help her to love herself again?
Or try this:
1. Jeanne Picard thought she had put passion behind her in her youth,
thought she would live out the rest of her days in the dry pursuit of
knowledge and the service of her duty. Until the roguish, wild alien Q
enters her life, and reawakens her passion, while she must try to teach
him what it means to love a human.
or:
2. Jean-Luc Picard was dedicated to his ship, his crew, his ideals and
service to Starfleet. And then the beautiful, seductive alien Q entered
his life, tempting him with her wild nature and the fire of her
unpredictable passions. But does she truly love him, or is it all just a
heartbreaking game for her?
These stories are Emma Woodhouse's P/K series and Ruth and Atara's "His
Beloved Pet", respectively. I can't really write romance blurbs very
well, but I hope I've gotten the point across that the exact same dynamic
could be mapped onto a man *or* a woman. Kim is the gentle, loving
innocent, but Tom is a rape victim who secretly thins of himself as a
whore who deserved it. Picard can be the uptight, schoolmarmish woman who
throws it all to the wind for love of a rogue, but Q can be the
temptress who seduces a staid, controlled man into wild abandon, never
realizing in the process that she's losing her heart as well. *either* of
these dynamics can exist in "Traditional Romance".
: If you have a scene in which Tom Paris storms into Chakotay's room, exposes
: Chakotay's agony and his dysfunctions, demands that he shape up and pull his
: life together, then in great emotional anguish declares that he's being torn
: apart by Chakotay's behavior, and concludes by stating passionately, "Damn it,
: I love you", with a brief but passionate terminal kiss and an exit in high
: dudgeon...
: If Tom does this in a slash story he's "confrontational", he's "assertive",
: he's "strong but vulnerable." He's perceptive, he's sensitive, he's
: whatever...
: If "he's" named Felicity Tempest, and he does *exactly* the same thing, the
: reader can and does instantly identify "her" as "tempestuous, overwrought, and
: (shudder) spunky." A classic bodice ripper heroine behaving precisely and
: frustratingly as expected. Pure formula, pure gender-role cliche.
Um., maybe I don't read enough romance. As long as Thomasina Paris
doesn't burst into tears at the end of her histrionic speech, while
strong, manly Chakotay gathers her to his chest and whispers, "there,
there", patting her on the back, I have no problem with this scene.
Thomasina (or Felicity Tempest-- except, of course, that no character
should *ever* be given the last name of Tempest) isn't being spunky,
she's being strong and ssertive yet vulnerable. And she's certainly not
tempestuous and overwrought, unless of course Chakotay really *hasn't*
done anything wrong, in which case plain ol' Tom is overwrought too. And
I wouldn't like it any better if Tom burst into tears.
Let's take a recent example. In Macedon's beautiful "Wisdom and Beauty",
Helen is the naive, innocent beauty who is raped by a man she rejects,
while Solon is the strong, inarticulate man who loves her passionately
but cannot say so, and cannot reach out to comfort her in her need
because he's too consumed with rage at those who hurt her, thus causing
her to question if she is worthy or not. A *very* classic romance
formula, and the sexes are exactly who we think they are. But the
characters are real. The Vulcan background and the way the characters are
established makes this story very much un-cliched, even though the
subject matter is. It's a het romance that works.
: By altering the gender pairing, even a fairly new writer can get away with
: using very traditional material, and have it look fresh, uncliched, honest and
: perceptive...
Not to me, usually. Which is to say, the phenomenon you're talking about
exists, surely, and it may even exist to a greater degree than *I*
perceive... but I get a big kick out of stories about Male Character X
and Male Character Y having sex in *spite* of the fact that they are
male. It would work even better for me, and interest me more, if the
writer somehow managed to transform Male Character X into a woman. (If
Male Character X is the more powerful of the two, so much the better. My
Q clone in a Picard/Q pro avatar I'm working on is a woman.) So it isn't
simply that "if you made the man a woman, all of a sudden the story would
scream 'Cliche!'" I think it's more that the character archetypes that
fascinate me very rarely *exist* as females in media fandom. (In
Trek, Janeway is our first female captain. Seven is our first female
outsider. Dax is our first female scientist, our first sex-positive
female and our first woman to display a zesty love of life. Every other
female characetr is either a nurturer/healer comforter or a violent but
somewhat sexually repressed firebrand with a tragic past.)
So I really don't think my problem with het romance has to do with the
fact that I would like the exact same dynamic if it were two men. I
usually wouldn't. My problem with het romance is that it rarely explores
female power. In a hurt/comfort where the man is the comforter, he
rescues the woman from the bad guys with derring-do and then comforts
her. In a hurt/comfort where the woman is the comforter, usually the man
dropped onto her doorstep injured, and while she may have used her wits,
and yes, her spunk to keep his foes from finding him, she didn't lead a
samll squadron of elite troops into the base to rescue him. (If she did,
I give that story high points!) Sexually repressed Janeway swoons into
the arms of manly Chakotay, rather than Janeway making a conscious
decision and approaching Chakotay like a mature adult. (I gotta read more
K/O stuff; if I'm going to find het romance I like, that's probably where
it will be, as I like both Kira and Odo.)
Siesta
Melange428 wrote:
> Alara wrote:
> <<So, what are the stories you most like about characters you normally
> don't
> like at all?>>
I've never really cared for Bashir/O'Brien -- in fact, the mere thought
of it has always disgusted me -- but I loved Cameron Burnell's
"Debriefing." Excellent story! Any author who can pull off a precarious
slash pairing like that *and* turn my revulsion to admiration really has
my respect. ;-)
~ Siesta
--
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Siesta @-}--
sie...@innocent.com
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Looking for quality fanfic? Look no farther!
Check out Kathryne's and my page at:
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/apocalypse/153/
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which
ones to keep." -- Scott Adams
"If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy long
ago."
-- George Porter
"If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either." --
Dick Cavert
The Shaw Family
What a long strange thread this has been!
Funny, I can't really think of any Trek characters that I don't like!
I'm primarily a TOS fan, the reason being that the characters (on the
show, that is-- fanfic remedies the problem) always seemed to be more
emotionally connected to each other. The characters on the other series,
probably for this reason, never really grabbed me that way. I never
hated any of them, it was sort of an I-can-take-'em-or-leave-'em
situation. The only time you ever saw any intense emotion on the later
three series was during romantic scenes, as if the only kind of love
that was of any consequence was the sexual type.
Speaking of romantic scenes: I guess if I had to pick my least favourite
characters, they would have to be the women of TNG (ooch, ow, crap,
enough fruit already!). The reason is that they never seemed to exist as
characters outside of their attachments to male characters. Deanna was
"Riker's girlfriend (former girlfriend)", and later Worf's; Beverly was
"Picard's girlfriend" and "Wesley's mom" (the attachments weren't always
of the romantic sort). The exceptions to this rule were Tasha and Dr.
Pulaski, but we all know what happened to them. Note that it isn't the
characters themselves I don't like, only the way they were written on
the show. I like Christine Chapel. On the show, she was strong and
capable until you put her in the same room with Spock, at which point
she got all mushy in the head; but in the Pocket Books novels and in my
own mind, she is not so one-dimensional. Somebody mentioned something
about strong characters showing their sensitive side, and vice-versa--
maybe that's how I'm seeing Christine.
--DragonGrrl
P.S.: Am I the only person that actually liked Kate Pulaski? I wish
she'd stayed around longer. Even though she was a doctor, she didn't
fall into the "caretaker" role that Beverly and Deanna did, as female
characters on a show full of adventurous males so often do. Now that I
think about it, she reminds me of McCoy. Oddly enough, at the time I was
watching the second season of TNG, neither Pulaski nor McCoy were on my
list of favourite characters... I guess as I came to appreciate Bones
more, I noticed the similarities with Pulaski. Go figure.
"Captain! We appear to be caught in some kind of consciousness
stream..." :) Sorry 'bout that.
Nyani-Iisha Martin
Aleph Press (al...@netcom.com) wrote:
: So, what are the stories you most like about characters you normally
: don't like at all?
Hmmm. *big smile*
First off: I think I am the only Star Trek fan who *dislikes* Kirk. I
never liked him. Spock and Uhura and Chekov were my favorites on TOS.
But I like Killa's K/S, and I'll read *anything* by Greywolf.
Similarly, although I liked Spock, I've never been overly fond of Vulcans,
mostly because I've never believed that logic is anything but one more
tool some people use to do whatever they want and others use to try to
make themselves and others behave better. I've seen people logically argue
everything from why gay people are a 'danger' to children to why someone
could 'deserve' to be raped; people can reach any conclusion logically, as
long as they pick the "correct" axioms to begin with. (Yeah, I've been in
a couple infuriating arguments recently.)
But Macedon....his Vulcans aren't soulless creations of logic and
perfection. They are sentient people in their own right, people from a
very different species and culture than ours, and individuals, too. But,
then, I would read anything he wrote. :) He helped redeem Chakotay for me,
and for many other people.
Hmmm, what else. I'll try most pairings at least once; even though I write
Voyager P/K, I'll read C/P and enjoy it when people like Joanne C from
Australia, Siubhan, or Jan and June write it. But there are definetely
some authors who do better by some characters: Diavolessa and Blue
Champagne write O'Brien the way I wanted to see him described; Peg does a
wonderful, wonderful Janeway and J/C; I started watching DS9 regularly
*after*, and because, I began reading BGM's G/B; and there are lots more
I'm not thinking of right now, that certainly deserve consideration.
The only pairing that I don't like that I can't think of a story that did
them well is Worf/Troi. And there's probably a good story out there
somewhere, waiting for me. :)
Ny
--
_______________________________________________________________
Nyani-Iisha F. Martin nfma...@fas.harvard.edu
Anyone out of the mainstream/ Is anyone in the mainstream?
Anyone alive with a sex drive/Tear down the wall/Aren't we all?
The opposite of war isn't peace: It's creation!
---"La Vie Boheme", _Rent_
Lisa
Nyani-Iisha Martin <nfma...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in article
<6ajcn0$n00$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
> Aleph Press (al...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : So, what are the stories you most like about characters you normally
> : don't like at all?
>
> Hmmm. *big smile*
>
> First off: I think I am the only Star Trek fan who *dislikes* Kirk. I
> never liked him. Spock and Uhura and Chekov were my favorites on TOS.
>
I agree, can't stand Kirk. I was very vocal when he died, both times in
Generations
the best thing they ever did was get rid of him once and for all.
Lisa
Pegeel
Hi, Alara--
Mine's got major snippage, too. This is the fast and dirty response--dinner's
on and I'm boogie-ing.
>I do genderbending, Peg. <snip>
I'm aware of that. <G> I have read some of your stuff. (chuckle)
>Basically, it's slash with a different twist-- instead of saying "What if
>our boys were gay?" or "What if they were able to transcend gender to
>admit to their love for each other?", I would say "What if one of them
>was a woman, but nothing else changed?"
>
>So I gotta disagree with you. I've *done* this experiement (experiment
>snipped-- Peg basically said "change the genders of each of the slash
>couples"), and I find that either can flip, at least in the stories I
>like. Try these synopses on for size:
>
>1. Tom Paris is an ex-con seeking a second chance at redemption, but his
>experiences in prison have scarred him. Can gentle, innocent Henrietta
>Kim teach him to love again?>>
More snip of other examples.
Um, either I expressed myself badly, or you misread me--could be either. I
wasn't saying "write a new story that's a gender bender." I was trying to say,
"read an *existing slash story" while intentionally flipping the genders of the
characters, and see if they quickly conform to cliched Romance formula and
gender role. You may be at a disadvantage--if you haven't ever read much
Trashy Romance your familiarity with the formulas may be limited.
(chuckle-sigh) I've also gotta consider that, *because* you care about slash
and respond to it, that it's harder for you to see when "the boys" are actually
acting just about precisely like "the girls" would in a parallel Trashy Romance
potboiler.
In any case the idea was not to do gender bender as a free standing thing--it
was to subject a previously written slash story to a gender-bender when you
read it--test the roles for novelty and innovative character development by
seeing if, in flipping them back to a het relationship, they didn't suddenly
seem stale, flat, and unprofitably cliched.
As for your Romance blurbs, they aren't bad...but, in a very real sense, they
kind of prove what I was saying--any one of the stories mentioned are pretty
classic Romance formulas--the *shape* of the story remains the same. You
played a little dirty--you picked some of the best examples on the group.
Stories made more powerful because *within a predictable Romance formula* the
writing was a good cut about the norm. But the *formula* didn't change--the
genders did, and they would have "passed" as fresh even if less well
written--while the same material, IMHO, would have gotten grumbles of annoyance
if they actually *had* been presented as het Romance. <WG> As het they're not
all that innovative. As slash they're not only well written, but even in the
world of fan fic they still have novelty and the lack of gender assumptions
that go with slash.
>Um., maybe I don't read enough romance. As long as Thomasina Paris
>doesn't burst into tears at the end of her histrionic speech, while
>strong, manly Chakotay gathers her to his chest and whispers, "there,
>there", patting her on the back, I have no problem with this scene.
>Thomasina (or Felicity Tempest-- except, of course, that no character
>should *ever* be given the last name of Tempest) isn't being spunky,
>she's being strong and ssertive yet vulnerable. And she's certainly not
>tempestuous and overwrought, unless of course Chakotay really *hasn't*
>done anything wrong, in which case plain ol' Tom is overwrought too. And
>I wouldn't like it any better if Tom burst into tears.
>
Um. See that's where we differ. I still feel that unless a het writer does
one *hell* of a job with the writing, the scene I created would set off
"cliched scene, cliched role, cliched motivation" alarms going in most of us
who *have* ventured very often into the turgid world of Trashy Romance. The
*only* bloody way to save that one from being trite is to have carefully and
painstakingly devepled a situation in which the reaction was not only justified
in full--but was indicative of a clear and substantial character development
*that has more function than to just whip up emotion and get the characters
into bed.*
Here's another example--one that could be...and to some extent is...a
traditional camp stereotyped Romance scene.
The hero, a good and gentle man, comes home at night. He's tired, and weary,
and near despair, exhausted by the Labors of His Day. The Little Woman is at
first annoyed--but, seeing his True Worth, and Feeling Compassion, she takes
pity on him, soothes his weary brow, tells him a little story, and they have a
happy night...
(chortle) That one's right out of the end of Rose and Yew. If it had come one
bit earlier, it would have been *nothing* more than a trite little foray into
stereotyped Romance. As it was, it had eight stories, including a major war
backing it up...and I could *just* get away with it...after all people *do* act
like that, and it wasn't like Janeway had decided to go all fluffy and domestic
with no excuse but that it let me get the two hitched--nor did she give up her
independance and autonomy in doing so. She ends up right back on the bridge in
the end--the *captain.* But it took eight stories and a war, and a lot of
other involvements, and a lot of other interactions for me to be able to pull
it off without it *instantly* being identifiable as Just a Trashy Romance
motif--and I suspect that even putting in that much effort there were folks who
cringed and twitched a little.
If I'd written it as slash? I honestly believe I could have gotten the
characters to that scene within one story--and few would have noticed that it's
straight out of half the B-movies ever filmed and damned near every sappy-gushy
Harlequin out there.
*That's* what I'm trying to talk about--the fact that it's slash alters how
most readers see the actions. It's not just a matter of the *extremes* of the
conventions...it's a matter that the formula itself doesn't seem that formulaic
when it appears in slash.
>Let's take a recent example. In Macedon's beautiful "Wisdom and Beauty",
>Helen is the naive, innocent beauty who is raped by a man she rejects,
>while Solon is the strong, inarticulate man who loves her passionately
>but cannot say so, and cannot reach out to comfort her in her need
>because he's too consumed with rage at those who hurt her, thus causing
>her to question if she is worthy or not. A *very* classic romance
>formula, and the sexes are exactly who we think they are. But the
>characters are real. The Vulcan background and the way the characters are
>established makes this story very much un-cliched, even though the
>subject matter is. It's a het romance that works.
Uh-huh. And Macedon is, as he has always stated, a character writer with a
mainstream/Southern Gothic lit background. Which means *his* method of taking
classic formulas and making them fresh and moving is to write one hell of a
good character story, in which he moves you to a rather predictable conclusion
a step at a time, fleshing out the cardboard roles and breathing life into
them, so that by the time the inevitable occurs you're still with it, because
the end is right *for those two very individual people.* He's done it in het,
he's done it in slash with J. He's a damnfine writer.
What he doesn't do as a general thing, and what I feel many slash writers do
*and get away with*, is use a formula paradigm, the familiarity of the reader
with the canonical assumptions of the characters, and the novelty/erotic charge
that goes with slash simply by default--and use that to "short cut" his way out
of a fully realized character portrait that completely supports the resolution,
all presented within the story. He doesn't cut corners, and he doesn't use
angst and formula to achieve an end he could be achieving through hard, careful
thought and development. By the time he's done you can see the characters'
faces, know how their hands move--whether they're "old familiar faces" or new
characters he's created himself.
And that, for me, is the big difference between Macedon, and Emma, and a few
others, and most slash writers...The real Great Ones may knowingly use a
standard formula--but they work their asses off to exceed it, make if fresh and
new and completely valid...
The Good but not Great, in both slash and het, fall back on shortcuts...and the
slash writers can get away with it more easily because the optical illusion of
the gender switch makes it far less obvious that the shortcut was formula...the
het writers don't have that advantage, because the assumptions actively work
*against* them slipping it past as very new or very well fleshed out. We're so
familiar with the cliches in that context that we catch on immediately, and
grumble.
>
>Not to me, usually. Which is to say, the phenomenon you're talking about
>exists, surely, and it may even exist to a greater degree than *I*
>perceive... <snip>
< So it isn't
>simply that "if you made the man a woman, all of a sudden the story would
>scream 'Cliche!'" I think it's more that the character archetypes that
>fascinate me very rarely *exist* as females in media fandom.
Ok... want to think about this some...
My *first* instinct is to say that, first, I really do think that the "cliche"
reaction really is a part of het as opposed to slash. I'll mull it over a bit,
though.
You're right that much of media fandom doesn't play with well thought out
females filling traditionally male roles...but....but...
Ok, let's see where this goes.
Folks who want non-traditional gender roles...seem to end up writing slash,
rather than making the effort to see if they *can* make het as interesting as
slash is. I really don't see many of the folks writing even *attempting* to
develop either old characters or new "original" characters as fully realized
female roles. Instead it occasionally feels like the first thing a liberated,
passionate, independant female writer takes it into her head to do...
Is to write slash. At which she's likely to succeed, for the very "novel
paradigm" reasons I've been examining. Further, my own experience is that, if
she does try het, she ends up frustrated...the characters "aren't as
interesting" as they were in slash, the drama is harder to sell, the chemistry
isn't there...
And we don't get writers who want to challenge the limits writing for about
women who challenge the limits. Instead they're all writing about when Tom and
Harry met Sisko and Wesley. And I am *honestly* not sure how many of them
seriously ask themselves why they are't writing more women, why they find it
harder to get the same charge using the same devices, or why the old
"chemistry" isn't working when they do try to switch over. My own sense,
obviously biased, is that they are *not used* to dealing with the inevitable
cliche and formula *when it doesn't grant the free ride that slash provides,*
and aren't used to attempting exactly the kind of painstaking craftsmanship a
Macedon or an Emma apply to forumlaic matterial to bust up the cliches and make
them new and relevant in regards to the particular and fully developed
character. They've gotten used to the shortcuts and the fast fix, and don't
know it. And they never get around to going back and learning how to do it
when the odds aren't culturally rigged in their favor...so we don't get the het
material we could be getting, we don't get females in romance that *aren't*
knee-deep in traditional Romance formula, and the slash writers don't learn how
hard it is to kick those cliches when you don't have slash novelty working for
you.
Boy, I bet that gets me a few swift kicks from *someone!* <BG> Nothing like
being a contentious bitch...
>
>So I really don't think my problem with het romance has to do with the
>fact that I would like the exact same dynamic if it were two men. I
>usually wouldn't. My problem with het romance is that it rarely explores
>female power. In a hurt/comfort where the man is the comforter, he
>rescues the woman from the bad guys with derring-do and then comforts
>her. In a hurt/comfort where the woman is the comforter, usually the man
>dropped onto her doorstep injured, and while she may have used her wits,
>and yes, her spunk to keep his foes from finding him, she didn't lead a
>samll squadron of elite troops into the base to rescue him. (If she did,
>I give that story high points!) Sexually repressed Janeway swoons into
>the arms of manly Chakotay, rather than Janeway making a conscious
>decision and approaching Chakotay like a mature adult.
I agree with you--more or less. But in slash--the noble masculine Role hero
seems to do a lot of rescuing, comforting, and supporting...and the warm,
feminine role hero seems to be agonized a lot, tempestuous a lot, Highly
Emotional a lot...I still hold that all the old ritual answers show up as often
as not in slash, are seldom elaborated on or supported by the kind of work
Macedon and J did in the "Orfeo" stuff or Emma did in her stories, and are just
as annoying once you begin to find them hanging around cluttering up the place.
And, no, *no-one* is writing het that explores female power much. I still
think a fair number of the people who might have gotten hooked on slash, have
found out that they can do that and have it be hot, have decided either from
their own efforts or from reading others' efforts that "het just isn't as
intersting," and never really set their minds to learning just how the hell to
get beyond that. Instead they stick to the easier task of making an already
"non-traditional and errotically 'naughty'" fiction form keep playing on
indefinitely.
Hmmm. Longer than I intended that to be. More contentious, too. Seriously
the idea was *not* to be an insulting bitch. Maybe to knock over a few apple
carts and see what rolls out on the sidewalk? Or maybe I should say "what
roles?" (sigh) Look, honest, I admire anyone with the balls to write and
post, I have no objection to an author using *any* device that works...even the
device of going to slash because it plays better than het. But it's too
interesting a topic to just walk away from out of fear of offending anyone.
Off to mash some potatoes...
Peg
>
>
>
Pegeel
> (or Felicity Tempest-- except, of course, that no character
>>should *ever* be given the last name of Tempest)
(chuckle) Oh, and for what it's worth--no. No character should ever be given
the last name of Tempest. Or the first name of Tempest. Or Storm(y). Or
Blaze. (much giggling...) Unless, of course, you have a goddamned good
*reason* for risking immediate hysteria and anguish on the part of the reader.
On the other hand....(more giggling)...on the other hand one might actually
have a very good time naming a character "Zephyr." Particularly if he stood
six foot eight, and had him lift weights....
Peg
Ariana Lilcamp
In article <34CD2FB6...@so.innocent.com>, sie...@innocent.com wrote:
- Melange428 wrote:
-
- > Alara wrote:
- > <<So, what are the stories you most like about characters you normally
- > don't
- > like at all?>>
-
- I've never really cared for Bashir/O'Brien -- in fact, the mere thought
- of it has always disgusted me -- but I loved Cameron Burnell's
- "Debriefing." Excellent story! Any author who can pull off a precarious
- slash pairing like that *and* turn my revulsion to admiration really has
- my respect. ;-)
-
- ~ Siesta
Forgot that one, but I totally agree! Thank you for reminding me BEFORE
the awards :)
Aleph Press
Hi! It's the Alara and Peg show! :-)
Pegeel (peg...@aol.com) wrote:
: More snip of other examples.
: Um, either I expressed myself badly, or you misread me--could be either. I
: wasn't saying "write a new story that's a gender bender." I was trying to say,
: "read an *existing slash story" while intentionally flipping the genders of the
: characters, and see if they quickly conform to cliched Romance formula and
: gender role. You may be at a disadvantage--if you haven't ever read much
: Trashy Romance your familiarity with the formulas may be limited.
: (chuckle-sigh) I've also gotta consider that, *because* you care about slash
: and respond to it, that it's harder for you to see when "the boys" are actually
: acting just about precisely like "the girls" would in a parallel Trashy Romance
: potboiler.
well, my examples were to prove that one can take the exact same
already-established story, gender-flip it *both* ways, and it works. So
no, I don't think that, in those examples at least, one character is The
Man and the other is The Woman. One can look at it either way; *both*
ways it fits an established paradigm. And I think that if het romance did
*that*, wrote it so that you could reverse the sexes and it would still
work, it would be fine.
: In any case the idea was not to do gender bender as a free standing thing--it
: was to subject a previously written slash story to a gender-bender when you
: read it--test the roles for novelty and innovative character development by
: seeing if, in flipping them back to a het relationship, they didn't suddenly
: seem stale, flat, and unprofitably cliched.
Everything is stale, flat and unprofitably cliched. :-) It's all writing,
writing, writing. My examples weren't standalone genderbenders; I merely
wanted to establish my credentials in the arena you were talking about
when I went on my little autobiographical meandering about me and
genderbend stories. And, of course, the blurbs make the stories *seem*
like cliches-- but they wouldn't be, is my point. Because *either* way
you look at them-- whether you make Paris or Kim, or Picard or Q, the
woman-- you can interpret them as an existing paradigm. There isn't a
clear Male or Female role in the story. If a het story was written the
same way, where you could flip about the roles of the man and the woman,
so suddenly we have Jeanne Picard and Brian Crusher, it would be just as
fresh and itneresting as slash is. (or isn't. I happen to think that
those examples, despite the fact that you can make hoary cliches out of
them, are great stories, and would be if they were about a man and a
woman, whichever characters got assigned the male and female roles.)
: As for your Romance blurbs, they aren't bad...but, in a very real sense, they
: kind of prove what I was saying--any one of the stories mentioned are pretty
: classic Romance formulas--the *shape* of the story remains the same. You
: played a little dirty--you picked some of the best examples on the group.
: Stories made more powerful because *within a predictable Romance formula* the
: writing was a good cut about the norm. But the *formula* didn't change--the
: genders did, and they would have "passed" as fresh even if less well
: written--while the same material, IMHO, would have gotten grumbles of annoyance
: if they actually *had* been presented as het Romance. <WG> As het they're not
: all that innovative. As slash they're not only well written, but even in the
: world of fan fic they still have novelty and the lack of gender assumptions
: that go with slash.
I don't think either would have gotten grumbles if they had been well
written. Beccause the point was, *both* characters were playing both male
and female stereotypical roles. Boring romances don't bore me because the
males and females are in stereotyped roles; they bore me because that's
*all* they're doing. You can't take the average het romance and change
the sexes of both characters and have anything that makes sense. (Imagine
Chakotay swooning into janeway's arms... as the characters appear in the
*show*, tihs might make a certain sense, except that Chakotay, while he
is the ultimate Sensitive New-Age Guy, does not swoon, and no one would
*ever* think he does.)
Basically, swooning characters are boring. Characters who are 100% femmy
and nothing but are boring, as are characters who are 100% Manly Male
Strength. *All* characters work best as a mix of amsculine and feminine
traits. when you write them as such, it doesn't matter how stereotyped
the storyline is; an open-minded reader (that is to say, someone who
doesn't go *looking* for cliches in het, with a kind of "oh, yuck, it's
het, it must be cliched" attitude) will respond to good writing (not
necessarily Great Writing, just good) and characters who are more complex
than The Tempestuous, Feminine Woman and the Strong, Unemotional Man.
: Um. See that's where we differ. I still feel that unless a het writer does
: one *hell* of a job with the writing, the scene I created would set off
: "cliched scene, cliched role, cliched motivation" alarms going in most of us
: who *have* ventured very often into the turgid world of Trashy Romance. The
: *only* bloody way to save that one from being trite is to have carefully and
: painstakingly devepled a situation in which the reaction was not only justified
: in full--but was indicative of a clear and substantial character development
: *that has more function than to just whip up emotion and get the characters
: into bed.*
Okay. From my point of view, plot what plots? are generally point what
points? That is to say, I won't accept *any* scene, out of nowhere, in
which character A behaves toward character B the way you envisioned Tom
Paris, or Felicity Tempest, behaving toward Chakotay, and then they fall
into bed. That scene takes buildup. Now, the buildup can come from the
series itself-- that's the great thing about fanfic. Suppose Chakotay and
Paris were lovers while Paris was "fucking up" while trying to ferret out
the traitor, and it was Chakotay that did the stormy, tempestuous scene
about why are you ruining your life like this, and I love you but I can't
stand to be with you this way. That's powerful, and it gets more power
when you remember that Tom is acting and Janeway and Tuvok have forbidden
him to tell Chakotay. Now make Chakotay the woman. It's *still* powerful.
The series gave it all the buildup it requires. yes, it *could* be
written badly and in a cliched fashion, and maybe it takes a *little*
more work for the het writer to overcome that, but not that much more, I
don't think.
: Here's another example--one that could be...and to some extent is...a
: traditional camp stereotyped Romance scene.
: The hero, a good and gentle man, comes home at night. He's tired, and weary,
: and near despair, exhausted by the Labors of His Day. The Little Woman is at
: first annoyed--but, seeing his True Worth, and Feeling Compassion, she takes
: pity on him, soothes his weary brow, tells him a little story, and they have a
: happy night...
: (chortle) That one's right out of the end of Rose and Yew. If it had come one
: bit earlier, it would have been *nothing* more than a trite little foray into
: stereotyped Romance. As it was, it had eight stories, including a major war
: backing it up...and I could *just* get away with it...after all people *do* act
: like that, and it wasn't like Janeway had decided to go all fluffy and domestic
: with no excuse but that it let me get the two hitched--nor did she give up her
: independance and autonomy in doing so. She ends up right back on the bridge in
: the end--the *captain.* But it took eight stories and a war, and a lot of
: other involvements, and a lot of other interactions for me to be able to pull
: it off without it *instantly* being identifiable as Just a Trashy Romance
: motif--and I suspect that even putting in that much effort there were folks who
: cringed and twitched a little.
There might have been, but frankly, I think those folks would be
oversensitive. All you need to tell *me* is "janeway ends up right back
on the bridge in the end-- the *captain*." You didn't *need* eight
stories and a war to justify that scene to me; all you needed was Janeway
being the captain, *after* being fluffy and domestic. I don't believe
women, even captains, have no right to be fluffy and domestic; it just
better not be the be-all and end-all of their character, because while in
real life I fully support women's, or men's right to be be fluffy and
domestic, I want to read about heroes, larger-than-life people overcoming
larger-than-life problems. I don't want *any* of the characters I read
about to be fluffy and domestic and nothing but, male or female.
: If I'd written it as slash? I honestly believe I could have gotten the
: characters to that scene within one story--and few would have noticed that it's
: straight out of half the B-movies ever filmed and damned near every sappy-gushy
: Harlequin out there.
I would have. If Kevin Janeway didn't go right back to being *the
captain* in the end, it would have bugged the hell out of me as a slash
story; if he did, it wouldn't bother me, but neither does Kathryn
Janeway, so long as the same story shows her strength as well.
: *That's* what I'm trying to talk about--the fact that it's slash alters how
: most readers see the actions. It's not just a matter of the *extremes* of the
: conventions...it's a matter that the formula itself doesn't seem that formulaic
: when it appears in slash.
Maybe not. But I do know that *my* favorite slash is the stuff that's
removed from formula conventions sufficiently that you can't just say one
character is The Woman (or, you could say *either* of them are.)
: And that, for me, is the big difference between Macedon, and Emma, and a few
: others, and most slash writers...The real Great Ones may knowingly use a
: standard formula--but they work their asses off to exceed it, make if fresh and
: new and completely valid...
: The Good but not Great, in both slash and het, fall back on shortcuts...and the
: slash writers can get away with it more easily because the optical illusion of
: the gender switch makes it far less obvious that the shortcut was formula...the
: het writers don't have that advantage, because the assumptions actively work
: *against* them slipping it past as very new or very well fleshed out. We're so
: familiar with the cliches in that context that we catch on immediately, and
: grumble.
I can see a certain point to this. Many people take shortcuts, and what
you're saying is that shortcuts in slash are less obvious than shortcuts
in het. Wihch is true, but I think accounts for a lot less of *my*
disaffection with het in favor of slash than you are theorizing accounts
for people in general. (Doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong; I could be
weird. I've been weird before. :-))
: Folks who want non-traditional gender roles...seem to end up writing slash,
: rather than making the effort to see if they *can* make het as interesting as
: slash is. I really don't see many of the folks writing even *attempting* to
: develop either old characters or new "original" characters as fully realized
: female roles. Instead it occasionally feels like the first thing a liberated,
: passionate, independant female writer takes it into her head to do...
: Is to write slash. At which she's likely to succeed, for the very "novel
: paradigm" reasons I've been examining. Further, my own experience is that, if
: she does try het, she ends up frustrated...the characters "aren't as
: interesting" as they were in slash, the drama is harder to sell, the chemistry
: isn't there...
And I think you've hit the nail on the head. Most of us get into fanfic
because we've read fanfic. We start out with Mary Sue when we're writing
our own stuff, and Mary Sue tends to get involved with a man because
usually the men are portrayed as more interesting and they grab us in
faster. If we pick up on a really powerful, intense friendship, it's
usually between men because that's what it *is*-- I love most of the DS9
and Voy women, but with the exception possibly of a Janeway/Seven dynamic
developing, none of the women relate powerfully *to each other*. Some of
them relate powerfully to the men, but the only woman who's sexually
powerful, knows what she wants and is happy to pursue it, and is involved
with a man on the show rather than being entagled in a silly
will-they-won't-they tease or being in love with a man who's not a
regular and therefore is never around... is Dax. And she's
with Worf, who irritates the crap out of most of the women *I* know. :-)
By the time we're experienced fanfic writers, we've read a *lot* of this
stuff. And most of the het is boring, because it isn't being written by
the people particularly interested in challenging the paradigm, because
that's what *we* want to do; however, slash is being written in such
ways. So we gravitate to slash, and it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
: And we don't get writers who want to challenge the limits writing for about
: women who challenge the limits. Instead they're all writing about when Tom and
: Harry met Sisko and Wesley. And I am *honestly* not sure how many of them
: seriously ask themselves why they are't writing more women, why they find it
: harder to get the same charge using the same devices, or why the old
: "chemistry" isn't working when they do try to switch over.
On the slashpoint mailing list, I once called myself "the loyal
opposition" in reference to slash, because I think it did kill good het.
In X-Men fandom, which has a lot more strong female characters to begin
with, and has for some reason no slash tradition (the few slash pieces
are very occasional), male/female romance tends to be much more powerful
and interesting. I do think that we're so used to having to work within a
system where there *are* no good female characters that even when there
are some, we've been subtly inculcalted to believe that het is boring
and slash is exciting, because slash is written by people who are
interested in exploring the issues we are, and het isn't-- and so we
perpetuate. (Again, variable by fandom. Blake's 7 het can be incredible--
it started with strong female characters. But Trek comes from a long
tradition of women who are presented as such non-entities, we need to
make up everything valuable about them, and why do that when you've got
such great men to play with? If we wanted to reinvent characters, we
wouldn't be writing fanfic.)
My own sense,
: obviously biased, is that they are *not used* to dealing with the inevitable
: cliche and formula *when it doesn't grant the free ride that slash provides,*
: and aren't used to attempting exactly the kind of painstaking craftsmanship a
: Macedon or an Emma apply to forumlaic matterial to bust up the cliches and make
: them new and relevant in regards to the particular and fully developed
: character. They've gotten used to the shortcuts and the fast fix, and don't
: know it. And they never get around to going back and learning how to do it
: when the odds aren't culturally rigged in their favor...so we don't get the het
: material we could be getting, we don't get females in romance that *aren't*
: knee-deep in traditional Romance formula, and the slash writers don't learn how
: hard it is to kick those cliches when you don't have slash novelty working for
: you.
Perhaps that's part of it. But I really feel the larger part is that het
and slash have become self-perpetuating communities, at least in
Trekfandom. Het is the bastion of people who like traditional romance
(and mind you, I don't think Peg *or* I are saying there's anything
*wrong* with that-- to all their own tastes; just that neither of us, nor
the people the original thread was aimed at, *do* like that stuff. Not a
flame against those who do.) Slash becomes the preferred playground of
everyone who *does* want to push the boundaries. So even if they were not
falling back on established romance cliches and relying on the kick of
the gender-switch to hide it, would it matter? They think het is boring,
so they don't write it, so new people who are interested in the stuff
they are come in, see that no one who shares their interests is writing
het, conclude that het is boring, they don't write it... repeat ad nauseam.
And I wonder about myself. I was very excited about the concept of K/O (I
use that rather than O/K because Kira is higher ranking and *definitely*
on top in my view :-)) when i first saw it, even contemplated writing it.
(I've got some story outlines, if anyone's interested.) But I haven't
read any. (Of course, I haven't read *anything* that wasn't about Q or 7
or by one of my favorite authors, or a K/S because for a while they were
major novelities on the net, in a year. Now that I've gotten rid of the
archive, maybe I'll have time. That was my ulterior motive in posting
these threads, hoping someone would direct me to good stuf... :-)) Why do
I read P/K's or G/B's with more enthusiasm than K/O? I like both Kira
*and* Odo better than Paris or Kim. I, in theory, prefer het to slash. I
ahve read some K./O's that had me going, "oh GAWD I can't believe the
writer is doing this to poor Kira! She's not this femmy!" but did I
dismiss the whole genre on that basis, because my expectation was that no
het writer would ever do something as exciting as a slash writer can do?
Maybe that *is* part of what you're saying about the slash shortcut.
Slash, just by its novelty, gives a kick het never can. "Wow! It's men,
and they love each other, and they have sex!" (Or women, but again, the
lack of good female interconnections in trek makes for poor les-slash.)
: I agree with you--more or less. But in slash--the noble masculine Role hero
: seems to do a lot of rescuing, comforting, and supporting...and the warm,
: feminine role hero seems to be agonized a lot, tempestuous a lot, Highly
: Emotional a lot...
I see it that way, but I also see tons and tons of the other kind. The
emotionally distant, tightly controlled hero is rescued by the warm,
expansive, highly emotional hero, who tehn spends all his time comforting
and cossetting his poor tortured friend, who was so broken by the things
he endured that he actually admits to his feelings. I mean, that's *the*
classic get-Avon in B7 fandom. Or the classic get-Spock in Trek fandom. I
see the comforter and supporter as being the "female" role in
hurt/comfort a *lot* more than the other way around (probably due to what
I read; G/B likes to torture Bashir, and it's damn hard to torture Q and
then get P to comfort him, (and neither of those two are emotionally
expansive anyway), but really, why waste time torturing Harry Kim when
you can torture Paris instead and make Kim comfort him? (It isn't like
the *show* doesn't torture poor Harry every chance it gets.) And no one
*ever* makes B7's Avon comfort anyone; he won't do it, and it's far too
much fun to hurt him, I guess. :-)
I still hold that all the old ritual answers show up as often
: as not in slash, are seldom elaborated on or supported by the kind of work
: Macedon and J did in the "Orfeo" stuff or Emma did in her stories, and are just
: as annoying once you begin to find them hanging around cluttering up the place.
: And, no, *no-one* is writing het that explores female power much. I still
: think a fair number of the people who might have gotten hooked on slash, have
: found out that they can do that and have it be hot, have decided either from
: their own efforts or from reading others' efforts that "het just isn't as
: intersting," and never really set their minds to learning just how the hell to
: get beyond that. Instead they stick to the easier task of making an already
: "non-traditional and errotically 'naughty'" fiction form keep playing on
: indefinitely.
That last one is kind of what I think. No one *tries* to make het
interesting. The people who love the kind of het that's already out there
don't *want* it to change, necessarily, and if they do, not necessarily
in the ways the slashers would want it to before they'd read it.
: Hmmm. Longer than I intended that to be. More contentious, too. Seriously
: the idea was *not* to be an insulting bitch. Maybe to knock over a few apple
: carts and see what rolls out on the sidewalk? Or maybe I should say "what
: roles?" (sigh) Look, honest, I admire anyone with the balls to write and
: post, I have no objection to an author using *any* device that works...even the
: device of going to slash because it plays better than het. But it's too
: interesting a topic to just walk away from out of fear of offending anyone.
I've said the same sort of things, and I tihnk people *know* my position
on making my opinion clear. :-) (And yours as well, I'd say!)
I'd just like to reiterate that not only do I not really quite agree with
Peg that slash is getting away with stuff that wouldn't play if it were
het-- I genuinely think slash, for the most part, really *is* more
transgressive of gender-role cliches, that you can't just cast one
character as The Woman and one as The Man in good slash-- but that I also
don't want to sound like I'm ragging on het writers. I don't like a lot
of het because I can't stand traditional romance. There is nothing wrong
with you if you *do* like that, but I don't and Peg doesn't and the
original thread (Best Het Stories Chosen By People Who Don't Like Het)
was specifically aimed at those who don't like het, which usually
translates into "doesn't like traditional romance" because that's most of
what het is in Trekfandom. So we, the non-likers of traditional romance,
are having a conversation with one another in which we take for granted
that traditional romance is a Bad Thing because we're talking to people
who think that. it doesn't mean any of us believe it objectively *is*
bad, only that we don't like it.
Amanda Jacqueline Weinstein
Amanda Jacqueline Weinstein
Carole Lynn Mckinney
Nyani-Iisha Martin (nfma...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: First off: I think I am the only Star Trek fan who *dislikes* Kirk. I
No. You are not alone.
>:-P
Lilith (*yuck!*)
Pegeel
>--DragonGrrl
>
>P.S.: Am I the only person that actually liked Kate Pulaski? I wish
>she'd stayed around longer. Even though she was a doctor, she didn't
>fall into the "caretaker" role that Beverly and Deanna did, as female
>characters on a show full of adventurous males so often do. Now that I
>think about it, she reminds me of McCoy. Oddly enough, at the time I was
>watching the second season of TNG, neither Pulaski nor McCoy were on my
>list of favourite characters... I guess as I came to appreciate Bones
>more, I noticed the similarities with Pulaski. Go figure.
>
>"Captain! We appear to be caught in some kind of consciousness
>stream..." :) Sorry 'bout that.
>
*immediate* friends who'd have all paid good "protection" money to Paramount to
keep Pulaski. Yes, there were similarities with McCoy. And, yes, she had a
personality that had some spine, and some existence besides just "being nice to
male persons when they were suffering emotional nurture deprivation." I was
already annoyed with Trek for their handling of Troi, Crusher, and Yar...and
just about quit for keeps when the replaced Crusher with someone as interesting
as Pulaski, only to give her the hook as soon as they could. Pretty much
confirmed what I thought--that they *really* wanted mindless babes who were
just great at eating chocolate and holding hands. (No, Yar didn't usually hold
hands--but she was still an emotionally dependant little girl with a crush on
her "Daddy-captain" and a lot of nice, submissive/worshipful patterns to keep
all that nasty chick-aggression safe.)
Peg
Pegeel
Hi, Alara.
I'm not going to do the quote-and-snip thing this time. Yes, what you're
saying is worth it, yes, it's useful…but it really makes it damned difficult to
assemble a controlled and well reasoned line of logic. I'll try to address the
issues of your latest within a less "quotish" response.
Ok, first-you comment that it's all stale, flat, and unprofitably cliched…of
course, in one sense you're right. No matter how damned diverse and varied we
like to think human experience is, it's actually rather limited and tends to
fall into "formulaic" patterns created by biology and culture. No matter how
we like to think relationships are varied, they tend to be "human", regardless
of race, creed, color, and sexual orientation…the average documented gay
relationship may look different from the average documented het
relationship-but it still falls well within standard sexual/human behavior
patterns that exist across the board. And no matter how creative,
non-formulaic, and original Artists like believing their work to be, it doesn't
take much exploration of art itself to realize that, in painting, music, dance,
and certainly in story, there are forms, patterns, themes and structures humans
hunger to see used over and over and over again, and that if you wander too
damned far from the "formula" humans sort of stop caring. When it comes down
to it, humans don't want new stories, exactly-they want old stories and formula
that have been expanded on, refreshed, applied to new characters, new
situations, new realities…but very few people want to deal with even something
as marginally altered from the norms as "Finnegan's Wake," or, for that matter
as even less altered as most science fiction-a genre that has never had a true
mass following, compared to even the least inspired of Romance and Porn, or the
most uninteresting of mainstream novel. Humans seem to have a rather "platonic
real" story hovering somewhere in their heads, and if you stray too far from
the "formula" of that ideal ur-story you lose your readers.
That said, there's still a difference between a story with a human, formulaic
structure, and a Formula story-and perhaps most important to both of us, a
Formula story that isn't even all that good a Formula story. Which is worth a
minor aside…
Formula writing can be marvelous, delightful, and worthy of praise without ever
bucking the formula. I still delight in Agatha Christie…and she's openly and
forthrightly about as formula as it gets. I adore Georgette Heyer…pure Formula
Romance (sub-category: Recency parlor comedy). Victoria Holt is still worth a
read on a rainy afternoon…(Romance, subcategory Victorian Gothic melodrama).
Most horror, including Steven King, cheerfully leans back in the arms of
formula-and proceeds to scare the bedickens out of me…(which, by the way, is
why I seldom read horror-even knowing the game and the formula, I'm way too
good at suspending my disbelief, and I crawl around the house in the dark the
night after, waiting for boogey-men to warp their way out of walls and kill
me.) A writer who knowingly and unashamedly chooses to write Formula lit, and
who knows what he or she is doing well enough to play with it like a juggler
keeping torches in the air, is delightful Because s/he's good at formula.
But I really think the knowledge that the goal is to turn formula into a real
razzle-dazzle set piece is necessary to do it well. The writer has to realize
what the forms and assumptions are, put in a huge amount of time and thought
perfecting the skill and knowledge in the same way a competition ballroom
dancer practices formal dances, and has to know what is needed to make a new
presentation of an old formula unique, and entertaining. Good formula writing
takes skill, as much so as less-formula oriented writing, but it's of a
different nature: the obligation is to know precisely what you can get away
with changing and still be within form, and what you may not change, and to be
as clean, showy, and exciting to watch as Fred Astaire dancing. Less than that
and the form becomes a cliché, not a formal stage for a grand formal artist to
show his/her footwork. The writer really has to understand the set theme he or
she is playing variations on, to be able to craft those variations successfully
without just creating shambling, agonized lumpen-formula.
Now, aside from Formula writing, the other approach to writing is one I will
rather reluctantly call "Literary" writing.
Great Formula writing puts all its energy into presenting an old and
essentially unaltered set of character types playing out an old and essentially
unaltered plot line in ways that are fresh mainly due to new paint jobs,
dazzling and precise presentation skills, wit, and ingenuity of variation of
the form without ever actually breaking the form. But the ritual of the form
is pretty much the point of the thing: it's like doing a Tango, or going to
High Mass. The reader enjoys the form for it's own sake, and the writer
provides it happily, tricked out in nice, fresh vestments with energy,
sincerity, and respect, but it's otherwise unaltered. To alter it would be to
break faith with the reader, who has sought the formula because he or she
enjoys the formula for its own sake.
In "Literary" writing, the ur-formula of human story telling is necessary, but
not the point…and the High Formula of Formula writing is the death of the work.
A Literary writer can't ever escape the human demand that a story, and that
human relationships, conform to certain rather predictable norms. Can't escape
the frustrating certainty that people do fall into rather formulaic roles, and
behave in rather predictable formulaic ways. But a Literary writer tries to do
something that's almost the reverse of the goal of the good Formula writer-the
Formula writer is concentrating on brilliant presentation of form itself. The
Lit writer wants to use form only to the degree that human nature, human story
telling, and the actual demands of the characters and the situation impose-and
otherwise escape the predictable pattern of form. And where form inserts
itself of necessity-as it does in almost all sexually related or romantically
related writing-the idea is to make the characters so personal, the 'ritual' so
specific to the people and the plot, that it never seems rigid, contrived, or
predictable.
Try this for a metaphor: Formula writing is like being a brilliant artistic
mask maker. You accept that you're making a mask, accept that it warps real
human features-and play with that, creating dazzling and showy illusions with
fur, and feathers, and sequins, and glitter. Ok, so it's false-it's
wonderfully, humanly, entertainingly false, and so long as you do a grand job,
and leave some room for human use, you can enjoy the falsehood of it.
Lit writing is more like being a portrait artist: the form is still "false" and
imposed by human tastes and expectations-but the goal is not to shrug, and play
with the pleasures of flagrant Masque, but to present a compelling, convincing,
and meaningful bit of fool-the-eye that takes the viewer right past the fact
that a painting is canvas, and oil, and perspective, and brush work, and
instead makes the viewer deal with the "reality" of the subject and the meaning
of the material presented As Though It Was Real. Anything that reminds the
viewer that the painting is indeed a falsehood is probably in conflict with the
goal of the work. Formula is only used in those instances where to fail to use
it would be as distracting as shouting "It's a picture, and I'm damned if I'm
going to let petty things like human perception stop me from being Original" in
the face of the viewer. A Lit writer accepts that formula will impose
itself-but does everything possible to use it only when human nature demands
that it be there-and tries to play it low, and keep it well balanced with
personal, vivid, character and world specific material so that the bones of the
formula don't stand up too high or dominate the material.
So, why the painfully long meander into Lit theory?
Because I think we may both be getting sloppy in our use of terms. I'm
beginning to suspect that what we both hate most of all is -Bad- handling of
formulaic elements in either style. High Formula that fails to razzle OR
dazzle, Literary material that fails to convince or to escape the ponderous
surrealism of form gone rampant like Kudzu in a piece that at least
superficially shows no signs of being intended as High Formula. Unimaginative
and insensitive use of motifs, ritual trotted out with no sign the writer
understands the nature of the ritual or has the control or skill to use it
knowingly and creatively. Inappropriate use of formulaic elements: Kathryn
Janeway fainting and crying at the drop of a hat, melting onto the manly breast
of Chakotay, not because it's anything a competent, controlled, trained
professional woman would really do, but simply because the writer is so trapped
by the assumptions of how a "Romantic heroine" would behave that she damages
the other functions of the character just to get in that obligatory swoon and
sigh. Fights that occur not because a serious consideration of the characters
and the background reasonably demand them-but which occur because the writer is
too used to the idea that "a fight must happen and will add energy and anguish
and drive" to realize that even in High Formula the mandatory flame-war between
the protagonists must be in complete accord with the characters, the scenario,
and the functions of the piece.
Clumsy, automatic, mindless perpetuation of the forms, without any sign that
the writer has a clue that the forms have damned well taken over, and are doing
the thinking and the writing for the writer. Formula holds the reigns. And,
whether you're a Formula writer, or a Literary writer, you can't let that
happen. In either case you have to have the skill, discipline, understanding,
and control to use the forms only to achieve your set goals, and to create an
image you choose. Otherwise it really IS like kudzu-a hairy, rampant,
maddening mess.
Now, the reason I presented to "flip the roles/gender bender" test as a way of
vetting slash for mindless formula writing, is because I really do think it's
harder to hide the clumsy, crappy stuff in het than in slash. As soon as you
return it to the "standard" het format, the cliches jump out at you, deprived
of the camouflage of the exotic that slash provides. That's why it's a
worthwhile test, it's why I said you had to play the average over the story,
and it's why I said that in "formula" stuff there would tend to be one clearly
and consistently "fem" character, and one consistently and adamantly "fella"
character. If the material is depending on Formula protocols, the gender
assumptions and the formula assumptions will be there, big as life and bold as
brass. That may not prove that it's Bad High Formula-but it will at least
quickly tell you that there is formula creeping around in the concealing
shrubberies of the slash jungle. As for the good Literary stuff: it will
often, if not always pass your criteria that the characters both play both
ways, as good lit is into portraiture and character, which tends to create a
character which is consistent and unified regardless of what gender-skin it's
trotted out in…so, again, you've learned something, and learned one of the
things I was trying to convey using the touchstone of the test. You've learned
that the form in that case did not dominate and conquer the character writing.
I still hold that it's a useful test: it makes it easier to identify when
formula is being used, and abused, and it makes it easier to find when the
writer has managed in some sense to go beyond the limits of form and
stereotype. Not a perfect or all encompassing test, but a useful one, among
many.
You commented on my idea of "shortcutting" using slash, mentioning the charge
that slash can have, and het can never have. I think you've got it. But I
have to argue the idea that het can't be as charged as slash can. It has to
work harder at it-but then, that's part of what I've been grumbling and moaning
about all along. Slash comes with a built in cultural advantage: it's novel,
it's culturally unexpected, and it's 'naughty non-standard erotic." As any
tabloid will tell you, these elements are sure-fire attention grabbers and
emotion generators regardless of how well or badly they're done. So: "It's
men! They Love each other! They Express it! They have Sex!" is an "easy
sell." It's "Man bites Dog," it's "SexSexSex," it's "Oooh, naughty-naughty,
didn't your mother tell you that was bad," it's "Real Men Do Eat Quiche." It
does not have to be well done to be provocative and compelling. It's nice when
it is well done-but it is very easy to make it as fascinating as a streaker in
a convent just because it is slash, not because the writing was all that
exceptional when removed from the slash setting.
That's why I feel the het writer, if she is going to succeed, has to be
resoundingly good: either resoundingly and knowingly good at High Formula, or
at Literary writing. She doesn't get the free tabloid ride of naughty Jim and
Spock boffing away in pon far.
It's not even a matter of whether she chooses High Formula, or Lit-she has to
do it well.
Look: I'd place Laura Bowen as one of our very best High Formula writers.
She's absolutely magnificent, and completely in control of the forms in
combination with the characters. Cardassian Mask is structurally a Bodice
Ripper-but it's a brilliantly done bodice ripper. Bowen knows how to blend the
Formula with the necessities of the characters, play every change on the
drama/melodrama, and come out the other end having given the reader a Grand
Nantucket Sleigh-Ride without ever missing a step, or betraying her characters
or her readers. She can take a Formula tub/voyeur scene, and make it
delightful by never betraying a single one of your expectations, but still
startling you, dressing it up fresh, using wit, and the glitter of clever
presentation and razzle-dazzle to hold you riveted. Your mind may know damned
well where it's all going-but the show is so provocative and well done you're
just as happy to follow along for the ride. (For what it's worth, Bowen can
turn out one hell of a "lit" story, too. Her Paris/Lorcano slash, which I've
gone and blanked the title of, is one of my all time favorites of hers, and is
a "lit" piece, not a Formula piece.) But Laura has to be magnificent when she
does het-if she isn't every cliché will stand out like a sore thumb. She's
great evidence that formula need not be evil, though. It merely has to be
brilliantly done as formula.
Slash makes it too easy for both the readers, and worse, the writers, to fail
to realize when the writing is sloppy, the assumptions are poorly played out,
and so on. All the hot and steamy tabloid sex sensationalism stands in the
way. Now, please, understand, I don't want to get rid of slash-I do read it, I
do find some of it delightful, and even if I despised it, I'd hate to see it go
away. But I do think that if it isn't examined carefully and thoughtfully, it
does some damaging things to fan fic, to readers, and perhaps most especially
to writers.
First, as we've both theorized, it appears to "hog" all the folks who might
otherwise put in some effort to write female characters as mature adults with
lives that include romance, but are not limited to romance or to the most
boringly traditional of romance roles and assumptions. The only people left
are the newbies Mary-Sue-ing, and the hard-core Traditional Romance lovers, and
the occasional rare Laura Bowen and the occasional rare Kira/Odo writer with a
commitment to dealing with Kira as a strong woman, and the occasional Peg
Robinson with a hive of bees up her shorts because the PTB keep betraying my
own belief in the worth, dignity, and power of the average het female. But
we're drowned by the traditional formulaic stuff, because all our potential
allies are off writing slash and feeling daring and provocative and radical.
It's damaging to fandom, because it makes it too easy for "outsiders" viewing
fanfic to assume that the reason all those slash writers exists is because they
don't really care about female roles-what they really want is the rush of
"kinky" sex. That's all. Forget the ethics, forget the philosophy, quit
kidding us that you want to see a Janeway as a three dimensional woman, we know
what you really want-kinky sex. How about some Klingon S/M? How about some
salamanders. Quit jivin' us about that female dignity bull-we know what you
really want.
It's damaging to the general fan fic readership because, except in the hands of
fairly rigorous and attentive readers, it's too easy to simply say, "Slash is
exciting and non-traditional. Het is boring and traditional. Therefore it
must be that slash is Inherently better, and inherently attracts 'better'
writers and is inherently going to be non-formulaic-and het will inherently be
dull, formulaic, trite, and unchallenging: an insult to the characters, an
insult to the readers. Leave it to the boring, stodgy, unimaginative old farts
who think sex began and ended with Lohengrin and orange blossom and swooning."
It honestly takes a fairly sharp mind to realize that none of that is inherent
and inevitable, but is the result of slash on the one hand disguising a lot of
writing flaws, on the other hand attracting a lot of the less conformist
writers before they ever really attempt more than a Mary Sue, and on the OTHER
hand (I'm into Hindu Gods today), riding on a fairly easy and cheap wave of
sensationalism. Unless the reader really puzzles over the whole thing, and
takes the time to know the field, to know the writers, and to study the
patterns, it's just too damned easy for the superficial elements to make it
look like het is dull and fluffy and saccharine-and can only be so….and that
slash is vivid, and exciting, and full of challenging and atypical material-and
that it must be because it's a "better" form, and the writers who create it
must, of course, be better writers. It ain't that easy. But too often I've
seen it wrapped up that way, and tied with a ribbon made out of a
strangle-cord, so that no one ever gets out of that box of assumptions.
It's bad for the writers because when they go off to write slash they get some
grand free rides…and often don't realize that they have done so. It's like
Nubile Starlet syndrome: The writers get drooling, enthusiastic readers, they
get hot and easy scenes that just jump off the page, they get a star on their
door. And they never realize how much the flat belly, the tight dress, and the
high heels were making it easy to ignore the fact that their only acting
training was a one week section in summer camp. It also makes it too easy for
them never to question even their slash-writing skills enough to ever improve.
So long as that easy ride is there, why change? If it ain't obviously broke,
why fix it?
But it means that, unless they can and will accept the really depressing
challenge of examining their own work, and learning to pick it apart for flaws,
ALL they'll ever be able to get that power-rush from is slash. If they try
het, or non-Trek fan fic, or non-sex/romance, the crutches they've gotten used
to relying on drop away, and suddenly they're left in the same boat as the
aging Starlet who never realized that the only selling point she had was being
twenty, nubile and underdressed. (sigh) At least if you're a slash writer
nothing can force you to leave slash…you don't have to face the cold world with
your wrinkles showing, and I suspect that for a reasonably competent slash
writer there will always be an audience. But unless the writer is willing to
push beyond that, the slash world will be the limit of her enviroment.
If that's all the writer ever wanted anyway, cool. No problem. The world
needs more forums for folks with narrow target interest and amateur passion to
have fun and play. And even amateur forums with limited scope can and do
produce some masterpiece level work. Neato-kean. Nifty. Everyone is happy…
Except those of us who dream of seeing something more varied than the current
polarized slash-het dichotomy. Except for those of us who are disturbed
because the blanket answer keeps seeming to be a rather offensive "hey, slash
is good, cool, and well written, and het is just the old Harlequin stuff
tricked out in Starfleet uniforms." Except for those of us who resent being in
a situation where the rest of fandom gets away with dismissing fan fic as
nothing more than a bunch of crazed dirty old ladies who talk a good feminist
line-but really just want all that trashy kink, just like any moron buying the
Star or the Enquirer, or sneaking a copy of "Scandalous Sex Studs." Hey, I'm
not against indulging openly and happily in sensational erotica…I just kind of
hate it that it's so damned easy to reduce all fan fic to slash erotica and
sad-eyed heroines who Swoon while invoking the great Goddess Mary Sue. I think
we're all of us more interesting than that, and it frustrates me that we so
seldom show it. And the last folks who aren't happy?
The writers who don't want to be Eternal Starlets. The ones who do know that
they're limiting themselves, but who haven't really developed the skills to get
beyond it, and worst and saddest, the ones who have fallen for the illusion
that they have it cold-when they were leaning on crutches of pre-existing
canon, pre-existing formula, pre-existing characters, and pre-existing Hot
Slash charisma.
Look, right now I'm working on "The Real Novel." It's going pretty well…and
fortunately I was never under any illusion about what free rides I was getting
doing fan fic, and what skills I was actually exercising in that field. And I
was a writer before I was a fan fic writer, and an artist for most of my life.
So I'm not particularly scared, shocked, frustrated, or panic stricken that
walking away from Trek is getting me involved in the challenge of learning new
skills, thinking out new worlds and people and stories, and trying to figure
out how best to "sell" them to the reader. Fan fic gave me certain skills and
experiences, it didn't give me other, I knew that going in, and it's no big
deal. But I've run into too many people who either don't have the training to
catch that early and be blasé about it, or who had the understanding but failed
to exercise it, and forgot that fan fic, and romance, and formula, and slash IS
a limit and a crutch…and who were spooked, unsettled, and surprised to find
that when they stepped out of the safe and easy environs of their little cages,
the world suddenly didn't seem as friendly, and they suddenly didn't feel as
Talented and Effective and Artistic. Major spooksville, major ego-bash. Often
enough to make certain that someone who has once been a Slash Goddess scurries
back to the safe environs of fandom, and never goes back to the real writing
she really wanted and dreamed of doing.
Ahhhh. I'm getting off topic, and I'm my usual prolix and verbose. I just
really dream of folks thinking more about the medium of fan fic, and about
writing, and about formula. We talk about doing crits of work, we all want
feedback…but feedback is seldom as useful in the long run as really thinking
about writing. Not just your own little piece: ALL writing. How it really
works. What it really means. What you're stuck with. What you're just
assuming you're stuck with. For all we're a ng dedicated to fan fic and
discussions of fan writing, we damned seldom actually talk about fan fic in any
really rigorous way, or about writing with any real probing curiosity. The
most passionate dialogues we get tend to deal with freedom of speech and
occasionally with what one writer meant to do in one story. We talk about
"what fan fic means to me," kinda like Miss America contestants schmoozing up
home, mother, and apple pie. We talk about the liberating exhilaration of
finding hot, passionate non-traditional sex roles, like Born Again Feminists at
a Take Back the Night Rally. We chat up our respective kinks and quirks…And we
don't talk about writing. We don't even really talk about fan fic. We
network, and giggle, and pat ourselves on the back, and we don't ask questions
and we don't examine our assumptions much and sometimes I smile and think
"That's great. There should be a place for that. This is good, it's nice, we
all get to have a good time, and the ng serves the function it is intended
for."
But sometimes I think "This is all it will ever be. This is as far as most of
the group will be permitted to go-whether they'd like to go further or not.
This is as deep an examination of writing, and roles, and fiction, and fan fic
as we'll ever get. Because it's comfortable. And clubby. And it doesn't
offend anyone. And it doesn't demand much. And if it limits someone, or
misleads them, or creates false understandings and superficial evaluations and
easy answers to hard questions-no one will ever catch it. Because 'that's not
what we do here.'" And that makes me sad…
Ah, hell. I ride soapboxes so damned much I have splinters in my Nikes. And
I'm way off topic. So I'll climb down now, and see if any of this goes
anywhere. If not…
Hey, Alara, it's been great shooting the shit with you! Really. Better mental
workout than I've had in days, in respect to anything but the "Real Novel."
One hell of a pleasure. I'm not logging off the thread yet, and if you keep
feeding back I'm good for at least a couple more rounds of the Alara and Peg
show. But I do think it's time for me to take a break and stop pontificating,
and I'm curious to see if anyone else joins the fray.
Peg
Aleph Press
Peg...
This was a really great, well-though-out, and provocative post....
... and on A Unix system I can't really read it, let alone reply to it,
without garbage characters constantly getting in the way, because (as I
discovered when I bounced it to my Mindspring account to read it with
Eudora) all your ellipses are "ellipsis character" rather than ... . That
is, you did not type out ... when you meant to put in an ellipsis; you
typed in some character that, on a PC-based system, comes out as three
closely-set periods forming an ellipsis, and on a Unix-based system like
my shell account on Netcom, comes out as 0++ randomly popping up every
time I try to page down.
I think you probably integrated my points and your own well enough that
I'm not sure I'd have had anything else to say anyway, except "I agree."
I'll re-read the post on Eudora and see if I have anything more to add.
But please, when composing posts offline, don't use *any* special
characters. No m-dashes. No smart quotes. No accent markers. And no
ellispis charactrers instead of just plain, old ... I use a shell account
for News because I transfer frequently between a laptop and a desktop,
and I'm unwilling to constantly transfer my news from one machine to the
other the way I have to with my Eudora mail on mindspring. A lot of
oother people use shell accounts for News because they are limited to
what their school or workplace makes available. And none of us can read
non-ASCII characters.
Sorry to rant at you. Great post. But if you want to generate a lot of
feedback, better post it in a format everyone can read... :-)
Jungle Kitty
Mike--
Thanks! As much as anyone can claim Captain Brandt, I guess I'll have to
say she's mine (and hope she doesn't kick my butt for my presumption).
> Also,
> Capt. Suzanne Brandt (the TrekSmut (c) character, by
> I-can't-remember-her-name-as-I-write-this-and-and-I-am-so-embarassed)
> is a
> dynamic, well-written and imagined character. It would be tremendous
> fun to
> read about her "black ops" team in a story one day.
--
Jungle Kitty
http://www.accesscom.com/~jkitty
VULCAN POETRY
At a nudist colony I know,
Jim ordered "Two cups of joe."
Then with neither hand free
And without help from me
Added, "One dozen donuts to go."
Later we had lots of fun
Romping about in the sun.
He cried out my name
At the moment he came
As I endeavored to eat the last one.
Jungle Kitty
Peg-
> If you're having trouble with that, try another experiment: take one
> of the two
> characters, and do a gender bender on them: for He-him-Picard, insert
> She-her-Felicity.
Have to comment on this. I write both slash and het, and many times, I
get an idea and I'm not sure what world it belongs in. I had an idea for
a sub-plot to a het story but when I finally ripped it out of there and
turned it into slash, it became one of my best stories (IMHO). It just
took me a while to recognize where it belonged and who it belonged to.
Also, just wrapping up a little almost-PWP and I don't know how many
times I rewrote it--who ties up who? Kirk? Spock? Brandt? I could see it
in my mind in all three scenarios but I finally wrote the one that I
thought was believable and I didn't think I'd already written once
before.
Now when I do something like this, I really get the impression that the
male/female characters are arguing over the "good stuff" and trying to
sway my judgment. "Let *me* get tied up!" "You let her use a dildo when
I could've done the job with my dick!" "You haven't written anything for
me in over a month!"
> If you have a scene in which Tom Paris storms into Chakotay's room,
> exposes
> Chakotay's agony and his dysfunctions, demands that he shape up and
> pull his
> life together, then in great emotional anguish declares that he's
> being torn
> apart by Chakotay's behavior, and concludes by stating passionately,
> "Damn it,
> I love you", with a brief but passionate terminal kiss and an exit in
> high
> dudgeon...
>
> If Tom does this in a slash story he's "confrontational", he's
> "assertive",
> he's "strong but vulnerable." He's perceptive, he's sensitive, he's
> whatever...
>
> If "he's" named Felicity Tempest, and he does *exactly* the same
> thing, the
> reader can and does instantly identify "her" as "tempestuous,
> overwrought, and
> (shudder) spunky." A classic bodice ripper heroine behaving precisely
> and
> frustratingly as expected. Pure formula, pure gender-role cliche.
Oh man, hit the nail right on the head. I'm running smack into this
problem right now. Completely tied up in knots over a plot line that I
know would be completely acceptable if the main action were performed by
almost any Trek character. But because it's an original character--*and*
a woman--I'm walking a very thin line and trying not to fall off.
About your Beauty and the Beast challenge--I don't think I'd have the
guts to try it.
Pegeel
Ouch. Sorry to drive you mad. Just upgraded to Winword97, and have just found
out the hard way that it's more invasive in this use than my old Win rev 6. I
used to be able to write on the word processor and so long as I manual typed my
indents and made sure to kill smart quotes I could cut and paste it in with no
problem.
Glad you liked what you could read of it. If you or anyone else would like to
be spared the agony of figuring the worst out, I can save to text and email.
Peg
Deanna
Hi,
Going by this discussion, I seem to be the only one, but I've never yet
encountered a story that would make me like a character I didn't like in
the first place.
Okay, I don't go out of my way to find these stories, since there are
enough about characters I DO like, but the few times I've had a peek,
I've never had my mind changed.
I've read stories that had one character I love and one or more I'm
indifferent to in them, such as Killa's very touching "Ghost in the
Machine", but I've never had my likes turned upside down.
I won't name who these characters are I really dislike, because I don't
see any point in putting down someone who is considered well worth
writing and reading about by others.
I don't think that's necessary at all and it's certainly not very
sensitive!
Deanna
Marlissa Campbell
peg...@aol.com (Pegeel) wrote:
Truly interesting discussion, even if both you and Alara are (IMHO)
making a whole helluva lot of sweeping generalizations.
I'm going to snip most of Peg's post -- not because it's not well
worth repeating -- but because it's so long that leaving it intact in
a reply would ...be even longer. So please forgive me if I seem to be
taking certain things out of context. I'm just trying to be concise.
I do see your point about the slash milieu being a bit more forgiving
of romantic cliches. However, I would just like to comment that --
knowing I have *far* less experience of the fan fic world than either
you or Alara -- I think this phenonomon applies to *whatever* one
likes. I know personally, I am far more tolerant of stories which
happen to be set in my favorite series and involve characters I like
and am interested in -- who doesn't feel this way?
At the same time -- while I probably only read about 10% of what gets
posted here (time constraints -- I'd love to read it all) -- I make a
point to read against type from time to time. And I'm glad I do.
Otherwise I'd have missed many of what have turned out to be among my
favorite stories. OTH, I have little patience with 'flawed' (IMO)
offerings in my less preferred genres.
>That's why I feel the het writer, if she is going to succeed, has to be
>resoundingly good: either resoundingly and knowingly good at High Formula, or
>at Literary writing. She doesn't get the free tabloid ride of naughty Jim and
>Spock boffing away in pon far.
'She"???? Okay, probably most are, but your biases are showing here!
>First, as we've both theorized, it appears to "hog" all the folks who might
>otherwise put in some effort to write female characters as mature adults with
>lives that include romance, but are not limited to romance or to the most
>boringly traditional of romance roles and assumptions.
Well now, this is an interesting -- as well as provocative -- idea. I
would sure like to see more comments in response to this one.
The only people left
>are the newbies Mary-Sue-ing, and the hard-core Traditional Romance lovers, and
>the occasional rare Laura Bowen and the occasional rare Kira/Odo writer with a
>commitment to dealing with Kira as a strong woman, and the occasional Peg
>Robinson with a hive of bees up her shorts because the PTB keep betraying my
>own belief in the worth, dignity, and power of the average het female. But
>we're drowned by the traditional formulaic stuff, because all our potential
>allies are off writing slash and feeling daring and provocative and radical.
Excuse me! These are not *just* sweeping generalizations, Peg, here I
think you're being downright insulting. Do you read every single
non-slash story? If you don't, how do you know this is true?
>It's bad for the writers because when they go off to write slash they get some
>grand free rides…and often don't realize that they have done so. It's like
>Nubile Starlet syndrome: The writers get drooling, enthusiastic readers, they
>get hot and easy scenes that just jump off the page, they get a star on their
>door. And they never realize how much the flat belly, the tight dress, and the
>high heels were making it easy to ignore the fact that their only acting
>training was a one week section in summer camp. It also makes it too easy for
>them never to question even their slash-writing skills enough to ever improve.
>So long as that easy ride is there, why change? If it ain't obviously broke,
>why fix it?
Jeez! So, newbies = Mary Sue; het = formulaic drek; and slash = cheap
thrills. Is this what you really think?
>Except those of us who dream of seeing something more varied than the current
>polarized slash-het dichotomy. Except for those of us who are disturbed
>because the blanket answer keeps seeming to be a rather offensive "hey, slash
>is good, cool, and well written, and het is just the old Harlequin stuff
>tricked out in Starfleet uniforms." Except for those of us who resent being in
>a situation where the rest of fandom gets away with dismissing fan fic as
>nothing more than a bunch of crazed dirty old ladies who talk a good feminist
>line-but really just want all that trashy kink, just like any moron buying the
>Star or the Enquirer, or sneaking a copy of "Scandalous Sex Studs." Hey, I'm
>not against indulging openly and happily in sensational erotica…I just kind of
>hate it that it's so damned easy to reduce all fan fic to slash erotica and
>sad-eyed heroines who Swoon while invoking the great Goddess Mary Sue. I think
>we're all of us more interesting than that, and it frustrates me that we so
>seldom show it. And the last folks who aren't happy?
I don't know what stories you've been reading, but only a portion of
what I see is *half* as bad as you're suggesting. Ok, maybe your
standards are higher than mine, but I don't think I'm all that easy to
please.
>Look, right now I'm working on "The Real Novel." It's going pretty well…and
>fortunately I was never under any illusion about what free rides I was getting
>doing fan fic, and what skills I was actually exercising in that field.
And I certainly hope you'll let us all know *when* you find a
publisher. I'll look forward to reading it -- whatever it happens to
be about, I'm sure it will be a fine piece of writing.
>Ahhhh. I'm getting off topic, and I'm my usual prolix and verbose. I just
>really dream of folks thinking more about the medium of fan fic, and about
>writing, and about formula. We talk about doing crits of work, we all want
>feedback…but feedback is seldom as useful in the long run as really thinking
>about writing. Not just your own little piece: ALL writing. How it really
>works. What it really means. What you're stuck with. What you're just
>assuming you're stuck with. For all we're a ng dedicated to fan fic and
>discussions of fan writing, we damned seldom actually talk about fan fic in any
>really rigorous way, or about writing with any real probing curiosity.
Okay, fine. I'd love to see discussions about writing: discussions
which would be interesting, helpful, and encouraging. Your current
thesis, I'm sorry to say, is *interesting* but it sure the hell isn't
helpful, and it couldn't be more *discouraging*. You've successfully
dissed *everybody* except a small handful of *elite* writers on this
ng.
Is that what you *really* wanted to do? Convince the rest of us to
delete our embarrassing WIPs and slink off into the night to pursue
other, less annoying, hobbies? I doubt it. But frankly, that's how
it comes across to me.
The
>most passionate dialogues we get tend to deal with freedom of speech and
>occasionally with what one writer meant to do in one story. We talk about
>"what fan fic means to me," kinda like Miss America contestants schmoozing up
>home, mother, and apple pie. We talk about the liberating exhilaration of
>finding hot, passionate non-traditional sex roles, like Born Again Feminists at
>a Take Back the Night Rally. We chat up our respective kinks and quirks…And we
>don't talk about writing. We don't even really talk about fan fic. We
>network, and giggle, and pat ourselves on the back, and we don't ask questions
>and we don't examine our assumptions much and sometimes I smile and think
>"That's great. There should be a place for that. This is good, it's nice, we
>all get to have a good time, and the ng serves the function it is intended
>for."
>But sometimes I think "This is all it will ever be. This is as far as most of
>the group will be permitted to go-whether they'd like to go further or not.
>This is as deep an examination of writing, and roles, and fiction, and fan fic
>as we'll ever get. Because it's comfortable. And clubby. And it doesn't
>offend anyone. And it doesn't demand much. And if it limits someone, or
>misleads them, or creates false understandings and superficial evaluations and
>easy answers to hard questions-no one will ever catch it. Because 'that's not
>what we do here.'" And that makes me sad…
You want it different? Then put your money where your mouth is --
*please* -- *pretty please*. Post some essays that will teach us
something instead of telling us how much of your time we've wasted.
If YOU start some threads about writing, either in general, or
critiquing specific stories, it would have a good chance of igniting a
*fad*. You have the experience and 'stature' on this group to do
that. Find some writers who are posting stories which are at least
sort of like what you would want to see, enlist their cooperation, and
get some discussion going of how their work could be improved. I'll
bet you all of my replicator rations for next week that it would be a
widely appreciated step-in-the-right-direction.
>show. But I do think it's time for me to take a break and stop pontificating,
>and I'm curious to see if anyone else joins the fray.
Well, you *did* extend an engraved invitation <sheepish grin>
Marlissa
Aleph Press
Marlissa Campbell (cpad...@idt.net) wrote:
: peg...@aol.com (Pegeel) wrote:
: Truly interesting discussion, even if both you and Alara are (IMHO)
: making a whole helluva lot of sweeping generalizations.
Well, o'course. :-) You can't really discuss a thing like this without
making sweeping generalizations. This originally came from a post on
"Best Het Stories If You Don't Like Het", which was all *about* the stuff
that breaks the general rules. So now we're discussing the gneral rules,
and why we think they work that way. :-) Of course, there is stuff that
doesn't do any of this-- which is the point.
: I do see your point about the slash milieu being a bit more forgiving
: of romantic cliches. However, I would just like to comment that --
: knowing I have *far* less experience of the fan fic world than either
: you or Alara -- I think this phenonomon applies to *whatever* one
: likes. I know personally, I am far more tolerant of stories which
: happen to be set in my favorite series and involve characters I like
: and am interested in -- who doesn't feel this way?
Oh, of course. I'll forgive a P/Q a lot more than I will a P/K, though
both are slash. We *all* cut what we like more slack. But I think Peg's
point is that part of the *reason* many people who aren't fond of
romantic cliches like slash better than het is because, in general, slash
disguises those cliches better.
: At the same time -- while I probably only read about 10% of what gets
: posted here (time constraints -- I'd love to read it all) -- I make a
: point to read against type from time to time. And I'm glad I do.
: Otherwise I'd have missed many of what have turned out to be among my
: favorite stories. OTH, I have little patience with 'flawed' (IMO)
: offerings in my less preferred genres.
Yeah. I look for great stuff that I don't usually read (I haven't read
anything but what I really really like in a year, and that's why I
started these threads; I wanted to be pointed to good P/C and good J/C
and other worthwhile stories that even the people who don't *like* those
genres think is great.) But I'll ignore anything I don't like, unless I
have to archive it. (There was a J/C I checked out, briefly, because its
tuitle made me think it had Q in it, and it was so bad... I mean, really.
Janeway, literally, swooned into Chakotay's strong arms. I am not making
this up.)
: >That's why I feel the het writer, if she is going to succeed, has to be
: >resoundingly good: either resoundingly and knowingly good at High Formula, or
: >at Literary writing. She doesn't get the free tabloid ride of naughty Jim and
: >Spock boffing away in pon far.
: 'She"???? Okay, probably most are, but your biases are showing here!
Not really. Either "he" or "she" can be used as a grammatical generic
(true grammarians will tell you it has to be "he", but feminists despise
that, and he/she is ugly and they is ungrammatic.) In a field where you
can reasonably assume that over 60% of the subject are going to be one
sex or the other, it's okay to use that pronoun as the generic.
: >First, as we've both theorized, it appears to "hog" all the folks who might
: >otherwise put in some effort to write female characters as mature adults with
: >lives that include romance, but are not limited to romance or to the most
: >boringly traditional of romance roles and assumptions.
: Well now, this is an interesting -- as well as provocative -- idea. I
: would sure like to see more comments in response to this one.
Me too. (We all know what I think...)
: Excuse me! These are not *just* sweeping generalizations, Peg, here I
: think you're being downright insulting. Do you read every single
: non-slash story? If you don't, how do you know this is true?
Well, no, it isn't true. I like to think that my original female
character in "Only Human" (who so far is not romantically involved with
Q, but give it time) is not a Mary Sue, nor a traditional romance
heroine. I have certainly read P/C where Crusher wasn't a typical romance
heroine. Many, many original female characters are neither Mary Sues nor
typical romance heroines. And I think P/T might ahve a lot of
possibilities, since both Paris and Torres are so thoroughly screwed up.
I think Peg was basically referring to what she was familiar with, not
really "all that's left", and she phrased it badly.
: Jeez! So, newbies = Mary Sue; het = formulaic drek; and slash = cheap
: thrills. Is this what you really think?
Not at all. Peg is talking, I think, about the common run of stuff.
Sturgeon's Law states that 90% of anything is crap; I wouldn't go that
far, but I would cheerfully state that the average fan story is, well,
average. A lot of newbies produce Mary Sues (I've never met anyone new to
*writing* who didn't commit at least one; I've known many people new to
Trek fandom who didn't, but they usually had years of writing under their
belt, even if they were only 16.) A lot of slash *is* cheap thrills.
Certainly not all, and this is something i disagree midly on with Peg,
who thinks that most slash has The Guy and The Girl from traditional
romance cliches, thinly disguised by making The Girl into a man; I think
slash is usually genuinely more transgressive than that, and frequently
you can cast either character as The Girl easily enough. But yeah, we
both agree that most of the het romance *we* see looks to us like
formulaic dreck, in part because we don't like the formula. I mean, if
you *like* the romance formula, you will cut romances much more slack
than if you inherently don't, or don't much. And this whole thread
started as a discussion of "people who don't like het, and what het *do*
you like?" I actually think Peg likes a lot more het than I do (well,
she's a J/C fan, and Chakotay bores me, so I'm not.)
Now, if you like a formula, you are more likely to forgive it a lot of
things. Maybe I really *am* overlooking a lot of the faults of slash
because most of my favorite pairings are slash. Maybe, if you like het
romance, most het romances seem great to you because they explore your
favorite pairing. To someone who doesn't like Q, much of my favorite
stuff probably looks like dreck. The point is that there are some very,
very rare stories which are inherently Quality, which many people,
including those who don't like that genre, think are wonderful. Then
there are the stories, and there are far more of these, that are great if
you like the genre, but range from "just okay" to "godawfully boring" if
you don't. And part of the *reason* we choose what genre we like or don't
like, I theorized (and Peg agreed), is that the people working in that
genre are doing something or other that fulfills what we want to read
about. If we enjoy traditional romantic roles, it seems that we mostly go
into het romance. If we enjoy more transgressive stuff, it seems that we
go into slash. This means that people who enjoy watching strong women in
non-traditional relationships can't find much to read, because most of
the people who want to write about strong people in non-traditional
relationships are doing it in slash, in my opinion (Peg thinks that even
the slash isn't as non-traditional as I think it is, and there's
probably a grain of truth to that, too.)
: I don't know what stories you've been reading, but only a portion of
: what I see is *half* as bad as you're suggesting. Ok, maybe your
: standards are higher than mine, but I don't think I'm all that easy to
: please.
Well, recommend sometihng! :-) Part of the reason I started this
discussion was to be directed to The Good Stuff. I don't want to
humiliate anyone in public by pointing them out as examples of what I
think is bad, so I'm not going to cite cases to prove you wrong. Rather,
I hope you will prove *me* wrong, by citing some great stories I overlooked.
: And I certainly hope you'll let us all know *when* you find a
: publisher. I'll look forward to reading it -- whatever it happens to
: be about, I'm sure it will be a fine piece of writing.
: Okay, fine. I'd love to see discussions about writing: discussions
: which would be interesting, helpful, and encouraging. Your current
: thesis, I'm sorry to say, is *interesting* but it sure the hell isn't
: helpful, and it couldn't be more *discouraging*. You've successfully
: dissed *everybody* except a small handful of *elite* writers on this
: ng.
Actually, I think part of her argument is that more of the writers who
write slash, or het, and are not what you're calling the "elite" writers
should think about what their base assumptions are, and *why* do they
write what they write, and *are* they using convenient, easy formulas? If
so, is that what they want to do? If you *want* to play with formula, no
problem! But know that you're doing it. If you don't want to, think about
But only if you *want* to.
: Is that what you *really* wanted to do? Convince the rest of us to
: delete our embarrassing WIPs and slink off into the night to pursue
: other, less annoying, hobbies? I doubt it. But frankly, that's how
: it seems to me.
No, I'm sure that isn't what Peg intended, and I know it isn't what I
did. But I think we probably both agree that more writers should think
about the craft of writing. If you write a story, and it works, *why*
does it work? What did you do to make it work? As writers, we often don't
know that. But if we look at stories we enjoyed as readers, and we think
about what made them work, that helps.
In tihs case, Peg and I both seem to have a problem with a lot of the het
romances that get posted to this group. There is a very, very fine line
between saying "I don't like this kind of writing" and "I think this kind
of writing is bad." And from there we start down the slippery slope to "I
think people who like this kind of writing, or people who write like
this, are bad." I don't think either of us are saying that. but it *is*
hard to talk about what you don't like without coming across like you're
saying "everyone should write stories *I* like, dammit!"
Put it this way. There are lots of stories on this group. Some are
excellent. Some are good. Some are okay. Some are bad. Depending on our
preferences, our critical natures, and hpw much time we have to read, we
may read and enjoy stories that are merely okay, because they are in our
favorite genre, while turning up our nose at stories that are merely
good, because they are not. That's the nature of the beast. If it *were*
true that most het romances were formulaic dreck, and most slash stories
were cheap thrills, it still wouldn't mean that the people who like those
stories have anything wrong with them or should be looked down on. Hell,
you don't want to know what kinds of stories *I've* enjoyed just because
they had Q in them. :-)
But think about your own writing. If you're writing a romance, are you
falling into cliches? If so, are you doing that because you really think
the character would do it, or are you doing that because That's What
Romances Are Like? If you're writing slash, are you feminizing one of the
characters? Both of the characters? (If you're writing f/f slash, are you
masculinzing one or both of them?) If so, did you mean to do that? Just
*think* about what you;re doing, and do you want to be doing that. If
you're writing a formula romance because that's what you love, no
problem! Just, Peg and I won't like it unless you are a very good writer.
But why do you need to please Peg and me? :-) On the other hand, if
you're writing a formula romance because that's the only way you can
imagine the dynamics of a love story working out, try thinking things
out. Is this scene a cliche? Am I doing this because Janeway really
would, or am I doing this because that's how women act in the novels I
read when I was in seventh grade and me and my friends raided my mom's
collection for romances with dirty parts? (I was a big hit with my
friends because my mom didn't try to censor me, so I used to bring in
books that actually contained the word "clitoris." big stuff in seventh
grade.) At the same time, you can't second-guess yourself too much. As I
said, nearly any good story has a core of cliche in it if you look hard
enough, so *just* because this scene is cliched doesn't mean you
shouldn't do it, if you've thought about it long and hard and you really
think the characters need to do this.
: You want it different? Then put your money where your mouth is --
: *please* -- *pretty please*. Post some essays that will teach us
: something instead of telling us how much of your time we've wasted.
: If YOU start some threads about writing, either in general, or
: critiquing specific stories, it would have a good chance of igniting a
: *fad*. You have the experience and 'stature' on this group to do
: that. Find some writers who are posting stories which are at least
: sort of like what you would want to see, enlist their cooperation, and
: get some discussion going of how their work could be improved. I'll
: bet you all of my replicator rations for next week that it would be a
: widely appreciated step-in-the-right-direction.
This is a great idea, actually. I don't think Peg *is* saying people have
wasted her time, but pointing out stories that hit is one thing (and I
tried to do a thread to do that.) Pointing out stories that almost hit,
and suggesting how they could be fixed, would be better. But it's so
hard-- critique, good critique, takes a lot of time and effort, and
you've got to worry about personalities. Can this writer take it if I
critique her work? (generic her) Should I *do* that publicly? If I don't,
other people can't learn from it.
Actually, Emily Salzfass put up a web page for fan critique. I don't
recall the URL, but the idea was, writers post drafts and other things
they want crit on, after they have given detailed crit to two other
stories (rather like a critique pyramid scheme-- GET CRITIQUES FAST! :-))
Such a thing would be a great idea, because everyone there would
automatically have stuck their head on the chopping block and
volunteered. Emily, if you're reading this, what was that URL again?
Ariana Lilcamp
(Marlissa Campbell) wrote:
- peg...@aol.com (Pegeel) wrote:
I thought about joining before, but waited to see if someone else would
say what I was thinking (it's happened before) since I had such narrow
focuses...
First of all, I hope MC's post got to everyone this does, 'cuz I'm gonna
snip some stuff I'm also going to agree with and not bother to rewrite.
I'm lazy. Blame me for that. I will leave this much:
- I'm going to snip most of Peg's post -- not because it's not well
- worth repeating -- but because it's so long that leaving it intact in
- a reply would ...be even longer. So please forgive me if I seem to be
- taking certain things out of context. I'm just trying to be concise.
I'm following this same logic :) Secondly, this is *stream of
consciousness*, NOT an organized essay. Forgive the organization, or lack
thereof. And I'm usually talking to Peg, NOT Marlissa.
On with the post...
- >First, as we've both theorized, it appears to "hog" all the folks who might
- >otherwise put in some effort to write female characters as mature adults with
- >lives that include romance, but are not limited to romance or to the most
- >boringly traditional of romance roles and assumptions.
-
- Well now, this is an interesting -- as well as provocative -- idea. I
- would sure like to see more comments in response to this one.
All I can say is we'd all do well to experiment a little. :) One big
thing I think Peg missed (my biases show) is that there _ARE_ f/f slash
writers. Shells, I just posted one such story. I will not claim it as
good formula-free writing (explanation later) but Peg really seemed to
write off all slash as m/m. Sorry... I've done het romance, f/f romance,
and f/f smut, but not m/m anything. I can't be the only one. And,
because I've been trying to experiment with everything, I'm planning to
try an m/m or two... but only where the characters in the episodes were
*begging* for an interlude or follow-up, before anyone thinks I'm doing it
just for the novelty of doing slash. (The same voice that says, Ariana
Lilcamp, WHY are you ignoring perfectly good m/m pairings? should be
asking others the same question about f/f or het... and if they answer
"There aren't any"... then they are welcome to disagree with me. That may
well be the perspective here. But I thought K/I held a *lot* of promise,
more than most of the m/m pairings.)
- The only people left
- >are the newbies Mary-Sue-ing, and the hard-core Traditional Romance
lovers, and
- >the occasional rare Laura Bowen and the occasional rare Kira/Odo writer
with a
- >commitment to dealing with Kira as a strong woman, and the occasional Peg
- >Robinson with a hive of bees up her shorts because the PTB keep betraying my
- >own belief in the worth, dignity, and power of the average het female. But
- >we're drowned by the traditional formulaic stuff, because all our potential
- >allies are off writing slash and feeling daring and provocative and radical.
-
- Excuse me! These are not *just* sweeping generalizations, Peg, here I
- think you're being downright insulting. Do you read every single
- non-slash story? If you don't, how do you know this is true?
Non-m/m-slash, but I already made that point. Now... I really never read
formula romance novels... my tastes run so far into either Literature
(stuff on the Reading Lists, even!) or SF&F where the focus is on setting,
events, technical weirdness, etc. that I do not really know the list of
possible traditional formulas. So I wouldn't know if I was writing
Formula unless someone like you came out and told me, Peg. (Note capital F
there) On the other hand, I can tell there are some distinctly recurring
themes to K/Du work (Marlissa, thanks for being the one I'm replying to.
*giggle*) so I would tend to think that if we are writing formula, we are
all writing the same two or three. Maybe it's because there's so few of
us. Maybe we actually thought about the characters and they just ended up
behaving in predictable ways. If one is writing consensual K/Du, there
tends to be a coming-to-terms-with-self-and-other line, a forgiveness
theme, a respect theme, a bit of competition for dominance... They tend to
line up in the same ways, esp with short scenes like I tend to write.
(The vignettes make it more obvious, but the longer ones have it too.)
So... is the K/Du formula a Formula borrowed from Traditional Romance?
(This is a real question.) If it is, does that make it less desirable to
read? For some narrow group of us, clearly it *doesn't*. And yet, if you
handed me some or all of the Bad Formula or BF-masquerading-as-Lit you
cited, I'd shudder, even if it wasn't K/Du being forced into roles they
don't belong in.
K/Du, I'd argue, caught us with some of the same novel thrill as slash
catches others. The two of them, the utter weirdness, the intensity of
the emotional baggage Paramount hands us, gives us a lot of fodder for
these formula stories to seem good to us... this is why I bring it up as
an example... I think some of the slash writers would feel the same about
their particular couples... I don't use K/I because hardly anyone writes
it.
You can call K/Du a subset of hard-core fans... (within your T.R.
category? That question's still open -- How'd you classify it?) ...you
can even call it a cult... but don't say it's trash without a better
justification of why Kira wouldn't follow those patterns...
(Yes, I realize you were general and I was specific. I write about what I
know by heart, here)
- >It's bad for the writers because when they go off to write slash they
get some
- >grand free rides...and often don't realize that they have done so.
- > -[snip]- It also makes it too easy for
- >them never to question even their slash-writing skills enough to ever
improve.
- >So long as that easy ride is there, why change? If it ain't obviously broke,
- >why fix it?
-
- Jeez! So, newbies = Mary Sue; het = formulaic drek; and slash = cheap
- thrills. Is this what you really think?
Hrm... I pride myself on having avoided posting the traditional Mary Sue.
(note *posting* -- I started to write one a few times) Maybe that's why I
ended up staying in het -- er, formulaic drek -- most of the time.
Slashsmut was a cheap thrill exactly as you describe, though, so that part
I can't disagree with. But the way I see it, I catered to *sexual*
interests, and so I don't plan on mistaking responses in that area for
responses as to how well I fulfilled literary interests. I may yet
return. My thrill, their thrill, my SO's eternal delight? I won't
complain. I didn't try to write it as some literary triumph. I'm not
good enough at it yet. I hold no illusions about my limits there!
That's what PWP's are for. To take out those urges without making them
masquerade as real literature and destroy the reputation of real
literature... some people, Greywolf for example, do it very well.
Re your comment about people writing fanfic off as exactly that... Sorry.
There is some. There is more. Marlissa writes some of it!
- >I just kind of
- >hate it that it's so damned easy to reduce all fan fic to slash erotica and
- >sad-eyed heroines who Swoon while invoking the great Goddess Mary Sue.
I think
- >we're all of us more interesting than that, and it frustrates me that we so
- >seldom show it. And the last folks who aren't happy?
-
- I don't know what stories you've been reading, but only a portion of
- what I see is *half* as bad as you're suggesting. Ok, maybe your
- standards are higher than mine, but I don't think I'm all that easy to
- please.
Tangent: I once was reading something about writing, much along these
lines... oh, five years ago? Actually, it was in the middle of a novel.
Wish I could find it again. The author was learning to write, and was
talking with some disgust about how bad romance novel leads were usually
so unrealistic, so she made all her bad romance novel leads (she knew
herself :) ) at least physically realistic, rather than the tiny girls
with the dainty feet, the slim-but-subtly-womanly-figures, and of course
the long wavy red hair to go with their fiery tempers. No one looked like
that, the narrator protested! Why couldn't they have big feet and plain
black hair? Well, I'll just say I cracked up (those who know me know why)
and kinda kept an eye out for the original stereotype. I never found it.
I bet it's out there. When I arrived in role-playing Pern a few years
ago, nearly half the female characters at least had the red hair.
In the same way, I don't see these stereotypes of fanfic... yet they must
be out there... even if the standards aren't so high... We just tend to
find the good stuff. I wondered about the classic definition of Mary Sue
until I read one friend's work... and re-read another's. One survived
*anything*, the other had every possible talent and favorable attribute in
the book -- er, bad cliche there. At that point I said "oh." I forgave
the second *very* fast, given that she was eleven years old at the time.
*grin* Do we grow out of it after our first stories? (My last real Mary
Sue, in an unfinished and well-hidden story, appeared in only one scene,
and pissed Kira off so much that she went and ranted at Bareil, which
promptly turned into h/c with probably the reversed stereotypical
genders. Collision of formula?)
- >Look, right now I'm working on "The Real Novel." It's going pretty
well...and
- >fortunately I was never under any illusion about what free rides I was
getting
- >doing fan fic, and what skills I was actually exercising in that field.
-
- And I certainly hope you'll let us all know *when* you find a
- publisher. I'll look forward to reading it -- whatever it happens to
- be about, I'm sure it will be a fine piece of writing.
Good for you, Peg :)
Some of us are *not* going the direction of pro writing. I for one
wouldn't write at all without the benefit of the free rides. (The ones
provided by an established character-base, that is. I write some for
myself that I'll never hand out to anyone.) Some of us write just because
it's fun to share our insights this way on the characters and settings we
love. Shells, what *would* a physicist do with fiction-published credits
to her name? Hide them?! I'm sorry if my kind spoil the group for you...
I hope there's a compromise.
- >Ahhhh. I'm getting off topic, and I'm my usual prolix and verbose. I just
- >really dream of folks thinking more about the medium of fan fic, and about
- >writing, and about formula. We talk about doing crits of work, we all want
- >feedback...but feedback is seldom as useful in the long run as really
thinking
- >about writing. Not just your own little piece: ALL writing. How it really
- >works. What it really means. What you're stuck with. What you're just
- >assuming you're stuck with. For all we're a ng dedicated to fan fic and
- >discussions of fan writing, we damned seldom actually talk about fan
fic in any
- >really rigorous way, or about writing with any real probing curiosity.
-
- Okay, fine. I'd love to see discussions about writing: discussions
- which would be interesting, helpful, and encouraging. Your current
- thesis, I'm sorry to say, is *interesting* but it sure the hell isn't
- helpful, and it couldn't be more *discouraging*. You've successfully
- dissed *everybody* except a small handful of *elite* writers on this
- ng.
- [snip] -
- You want it different? Then put your money where your mouth is --
- *please* -- *pretty please*. Post some essays that will teach us
- something instead of telling us how much of your time we've wasted.
- If YOU start some threads about writing, either in general, or
- critiquing specific stories, it would have a good chance of igniting a
- *fad*. You have the experience and 'stature' on this group to do
- that. Find some writers who are posting stories which are at least
- sort of like what you would want to see, enlist their cooperation, and
- get some discussion going of how their work could be improved. I'll
- bet you all of my replicator rations for next week that it would be a
- widely appreciated step-in-the-right-direction.
By all means post 'em, Peg! I really am curious ... maybe someone who
knows High Formula could explain it to me and I'm sure a few others? Not
in general, but some of the characteristics of it? The rules? Are they
like sonnets, where you fill in the syllables/scenes to a certain meter
and rhyme scheme? How can we decide whether we want to embrace or discard
the Formula in our works? The formula? (Capitals thing again -- F for
overall, f for subplots and details like swooning. Doubt that's right,
but...) Even the FAQ sorts of fanfic-theory discussion posts were
fascinating to me the first time I read 'em -- I probably have less of a
literary background than most of the group, but that doesn't mean sharing
won't benefit more than just me.
And I hereby offer my work for examples, good *or* bad *or* general. I'll
betcha some of the writers asking for crit would be willing to do the same
thing.
- >show. But I do think it's time for me to take a break and stop
pontificating,
- >and I'm curious to see if anyone else joins the fray.
-
- Well, you *did* extend an engraved invitation <sheepish grin>
Yup, and I wrote an awful lot for someone who thought she had little to
say <rueful grin, pushes hair back -- oops, that's not me! ;) >
Ariana
Ariana Lilcamp <thiss...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<thissen.ns-25...@far0727.urh.uiuc.edu>...
> I can't think of any right now about *people* I don't like, except for
> Ariana's "Voices of the Prophets". I am NOT a Sisko fan, but that one
made
> me enjoy and believe in the S/Du couple.
Yeah, the weird thing for me is that I don't like Sisko either, but there I
had to write a whole story in his pov!
The same goes for Troi in "With me"; in both cases, I chose the characters
because they were the only ones that fit the situation, allowing me to
explore that particular facet of Dukat and Picard respectively. I found
that exploring and fleshing out a character I don't much like on the series
was actually a rewarding experience. Which, I suppose, could bring about
the subject of what it's like to *write* about characters one doesn't
like...
Ariana
--
For Star Trek stories and lists of Cardassian "Romances":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ariane/
(Updated Jan 23, 1998)
Ariana
Hehe... you didn't think I could let this pass by without responding to it!
Zepp's original comment has disappeared from this newsserver, so I'm
piggy-backing on Marlissa's quote.
Marlissa Campbell <cpad...@idt.net> wrote in article
<6ah86g$31e$1...@usenet1.interramp.com>...
>
> zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel) wrote:
>
> >Likewise, Troi usually bores me to death. I only ever liked a couple
> >of the episodes with her in them -- the one where she wakes up and
> >finds she's a Romulan comes to mind. But there was a story called
> >"With Me In Your Mind" <sorry, forgot who wrote it> in which Troi and
> >Picard wind up goin' at it hot an' heavy -- and man, that was one
> >*hot* little story. So I had to grudgingly admit that Troi wasn't a
> >*total* bore...
Strangely enough, Troi is one of my least favourite characters on TNG too.
I certainly wouldn't have read any stories involving her myself, and yet,
for some completely obscure reason, I just had to write this story. It was
originally designed as a sort of prequel to a longer story I'm still
working on ("Futur Antérieur", an incomplete draft of which is available on
my Web site), but as the conversation took shape in my head and my daily
dose of TrekSmut reading interfered, I found myself with an end result that
was nothing like what I had originally planned!
Mind you, I seem to be attracted to this sort of weird pairing; I believe
I'm the only person so far to have paired Q with Vash (aside from TPTB, of
course), Dukat with Sisko, and Quark with Ziyal... I know life isn't just
about pairings, but it's fun to experiment nonetheless.
> Thinking of Ariana's web page also puts me in mind of a wonderful
> series of stories about *Damar* which she has listed there. These are
> by Katany, aka Christine Collins (she writes under both names), and
> are absolutely *fabulous*. I always thought of Damar as nothing more
> than Dukat's not-very-talented side-kick... But Christine has totally
> turned me around. She hasn't posted any of them here, but if I've
> managed to tempt you into checking them out, Ariana has them listed
> with synopses and links at:
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ariane
Thanks for the head's up to my page, Marlissa. I agree about Christine's
stories. I had never given poor Damar so much as a second thought when he
appeared in Return to Grace and Apocalypse Rising. And yet Christine went
and constructed a beautiful Du/Da out of those two appearances -- slash
friends, "Nightwatch" is a must to read! It is archived on the Web page of
the Dukat's Women Social Club of Germany at
http://privat.schlund.de/dwscog/, and there is a direct link to the story
from my list of Dukat romances as well. But Christine didn't just leave
things at that; she has written a number of short stories about Damar, all
taking place in the same universe as Nightwatch, while cleverly embracing
the continuity from the series.
> ('With Me In Your Mind' and 'Halfway are there too; and no, Ariana
> didn't bribe me to rave about her stories and page ;))
No. I just plied her hand with well-deserved praise. ;)
But enough from me...
OdoGoddess
Charlene wrote:
>"In Prophets' Footsteps" by Ariana, because at the time it was
>originally posted it made a lot of sense (in other words, before
>"Waltz"), and maybe because it showed Ziyal true to form. Perhaps also
>because it didn't show Kira as a submissive, weak female being
>seduced/protected/confronted by a strong male.
My personal favorite Ariana story is "Just For Tonight". She managed to take
Quark and Ziyal and portray them not only true to character, but also used
those little bits of information from the show to flesh out what is a very
simple story and make into something more intimate and moving. Like taking
into account Ziyal's brutal childhood in a Breen prison and Quark's past affair
with a Cardassian woman (Natima) and the fact that he *would* know what would
please one.
I really, really enjoyed this story. Which isn't to say I don't like their
characters. Frankly, I like just about everyone on DS9, regular cast and guest
characters, and the two I am indifferent to I won't name. It pleases me to
write sometimes and have someone tell me they liked so-and-so's interaction or
that I captured so-and-so's 'voice'. Even knowing privately I don't really
care much for that character, it's nice to know that as a writer I'm able to
keep that personal disinterest from flowing into my stories.
As for stories I've liked about characters that usually make me shrug, I'd have
to admit Killa's work really grabs me. I'm not a big K/S fan, but her work is
outstanding. Judy Gran's "Terminus" also opened my eyes. Mind you, I *love*
TOS, I just don't read much of it. In TNG, I read mostly P/C and the
occasional Data story, but not much slash. However, in the TNG slash category,
Espressivo really has made me keep an eye out for their work. That Data/Soong
story really impressed me (forget the title off the top of my head).
Then there is Atara's "She Moves In Mysterious Ways" which also grabbed my
attention and wouldn't let it go. So much so that despite having lost interest
in VOY partway through third season, I gladly read her J/Q "Show Me What You
Can Do". Another winner. Actually it deserves a Choc-o-holics reward. :)
[snip]
>Although it's not primarily a romance, "If These Walls Could Talk" by
>OdoGoddess is also a favourite. As are many of OdoGoddess's stories,
>come to think of it!
:#) I'm flattered. Thank you, that's very nice.
>Charlene Vickers cvic...@internorth.com
>Yellowknife, NWT, Canada - where men are men and there ain't no sheep
>http://users.internorth.com/~cvickers/mainpage.htm
BTW, I keep meaning to say how much I love your .sig. <g>
(-|-)* Judith
proud Rene-A-holic & ReneAFanList (RAFL) member
"We aren't everybody's cup of tea." Rene Auberjonois, TV Guide
My Page: http://members.aol.com/OdoGoddess/Tales.html
"Come in, come in! I was just oozing around the room." Odo, 'Facets'
(-|-)* Judith
proud Rene-A-holic & ReneAFanList member
"We aren't everybody's cup of tea." Rene Auberjonois, TV Guide
My Page: http://members.aol.com/OdoGoddess/Tales.html
"Everybody needs a hobby." Odo (DS9: The Alternate)
Aleph Press
Ariana Lilcamp (thiss...@uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Tangent: I once was reading something about writing, much along these
: lines... oh, five years ago? Actually, it was in the middle of a novel.
: Wish I could find it again. The author was learning to write, and was
: talking with some disgust about how bad romance novel leads were usually
: so unrealistic, so she made all her bad romance novel leads (she knew
: herself :) ) at least physically realistic, rather than the tiny girls
: with the dainty feet, the slim-but-subtly-womanly-figures, and of course
: the long wavy red hair to go with their fiery tempers. No one looked like
: that, the narrator protested! Why couldn't they have big feet and plain
: black hair? Well, I'll just say I cracked up (those who know me know why)
: and kinda kept an eye out for the original stereotype. I never found it.
: I bet it's out there. When I arrived in role-playing Pern a few years
: ago, nearly half the female characters at least had the red hair.
Hah! While I try to avoid the stereotype of having all the characters be
beautiful myself, the tiny woman with dainty feet, slim but subtly womanly
figure (at least, five years and 20 pounds ago), and long wavy red hair
is me! (5 ft 0, 125 lbs but was better looking when I was 105, size 6
shoes and I used to have red hair down to mid-back, and it is *very*
wavy.) However, I don't have a fiery temper.
So the stereotypical romance heroine *isn't* physically unrealistic; it's
just that when *every* heroine looks like that, it can get very, very
irritating.
(And no, Mercutio's Naomi Allen was created before she had any idea what
I look like. Naomi is not based on me in the slightest.)
This was kind of off the topic of the thread, but I had to say it. :-)
Ariana
Nothing to do with the title <g>
Pegeel <peg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980127233...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Go into Tools, AutoCorrect and disable Replace Text As You Type -- and
voilà, problem solved!
In fact, you can probably disable everything that's in there (automatic
borders, smart quotes, tiddly fractions, automatic bold and italics... Word
99 will probably be reading your thoughts... and still not producing what
you want... :)
(Er... sorry for the accent to all non-MS users... :)
Pegeel
Hi, Marlissa-
No. Not offended you joined in. Not offended your offended by some of what
I'm saying.
Are Alara and I making sweeping generalizations?
Of course. It's a general discussion, on a general field, in an informal and
editorial mode. And for what it's worth, I am making general statements
because I prefer dealing with general topics of grumble *without* turning any
specific writer into a scapegoat. There's a strange damned mystique about crit
that seems to hold that it's good taking a writer when she--and yes, today I
choose to use she--is at her weakest, when she's least experienced, least
competent, least trained...and ripping the hell out of her fragile little
newborn piece, and showing her every flaw and deformity. This is supposed to
be useful and constructive.
I'd as soon knock down barnswallow nests and stomp the chicks. Thank you very
much, but I have never felt that was constructive. New writers have *general*
problems, shared by many new writers. They have few shields in place, they
have enough problems writing that a *serious* crit is likely to prove endless
and demoralizing. You find me taking out after a general set of complaints and
spreading them out over a general readership demoralizing, non-constructive and
negative? At least in choosing to take on the issue this way I have made sure
no innocent or inexperienced writer has to be the maiden under the train
wheels.
As for your suggestion that I use my vaunted status on the group and my skills
and training to elect myself group mum, dispenser of wisdom and crit, and
general Professor of Fan Fic? Put my money where my mouth is?
Marlissa, for going on three bloody years now I have been trying to figure out
a way to help this group get involved in the kinds of thinking and interaction
I honestly think would be usefull and practically managable in this forum.
I've posted messages, done behind the scenes crit of others' work, I've had
exchanges both public and private regarding lit theory. I presented a
bloody-long essay on crit, having asked the group if they wanted to *discuss*
crit issues, presented it *as a discussion piece*, requested folks to comment
and debate. Damned thing took me about a week to write. What happened? It
got accepted in one gulp, and I ended up being asked if it could become part of
the FAQ, and NO ONE DISCUSSED CRIT. I have turned my mind inside out, upside
down, and backwards trying to figure out a constructive thing I could do, that
didn't involve making myself a martyr-saint with a nasty little ersatz halo and
a pile of reading and crit work the size of Mount Everest, and an ugly little
desk in the middle of the ng where I would play Teacher.
I do not have enough fondness for playing Teacher. Not when I cannot see the
faces of the class. Not when I can't pace the feedback to the individual. Not
when the job is done in public, and depends on playing stupid, unappealing, and
inappropriate games with my "status" and "experience" and "respected position"
on this ng. I am a short, fat, often useless, often abrassive housewife,
trying to break into a field that is renowned for devouring its young. I've
written a few good Trek stories. I've written a few good non-Trek stories.
I've got the usual litter of trunk-novels. I don't even know what the hell to
*say* about my status on the group. I have a letter on my bloody hard drive
that I still haven't answered because the writer too obviously thinks too
highly of me, and I don't know how to get past that and be who *I* think I am.
Just me. Bright enough, possibly talented enough, hard working at the writing,
hard working at the thinking...but just me.
I have directed. I have taught and tutored. I have done crit in individual
and group settings. I've been part of art crit, theater crit, music crit.
I've watched teachers try to perform critical thinking instruction to
auditorium sized class rooms. You know what? What seems to work best in a
large group is for the "prof" to address general issues, and then let the
"students" take it on in smaller ways. Sort into groups. Or stand up and
address the general issues to the whole bloody class.
There's this frapping mystique about crit. Yes, it is useful to have someone
give you feedback on your story. But half the time even a good editor can't
tell you "what's wrong." Even more often they can't tell you "how to fix it."
The only way you really learn so near as I can tell is to learn to read lit
critically, then learn to read your own material critically, *then* listen to
feedback...and then try to use what you learned thinking about lit in general
to find a solution that works for you. La Professeure sitting at the head of
the class can't do that.
What can I do?
You said "put my money where my mouth is." It seems not to have occured to you
that *I am.* Right now. This instant. I'm doing the one thing that, at this
point, I think might shake up the dynamic and make people *think.* You think I
enjoy standing up here making an offensive, loud mouthed ass of myself? Yeah.
I'm prolix. I'm capable of being very loud-mouthed. But it's not a hobby
passtime. I'm actually a rather rare poster here, comparatively. Not a
lurker, but not daily entry, either. I usually don't get on unless I've got
something to say or accomplish. I don't really like or trust the status thing,
and I don't particularly need or want a permanent forum as guru of the
newsgroup. But if I don't think I can or should stand up and play teacher and
crit-mistress, there is one damned thing I can do.
(Peg stalks over to her bookshelf. Pulls down books, magazines, old xeroxes.)
Harlan Ellison--too many damned editorial writings to list. Robert
Silverberg--again, too many damned articles to list. Ursula K. LeGuin: The
Languages of the Night. A book I can't find right now by the woman who wrote
something like five Newbury award winners, including "Jacob I have loved"--the
book in question called "The Gates of Excellence." Essays by Marion Zimmer
Bradley. A honkin' big pile of books by John Gardiner, including "On Writers
and Writing" and "On Moral Fiction."
These are my *teachers*, people. They stood up on soapboxes and took on
general issues, usually in a general way. Some of them were twice as
aggressive and offensive as anything I've said here. Some of them were rather
mild. Most of them I have *argued* with in my head. Every damned last one of
them has made me think. They didn't do it by volunteering to read my stories,
they didn't do it by giving me lessons. Some of them have given workshops--but
in contained settings,with limited numbers of students, who had made a
commitment to produce certain writing and take part in many exercises--and take
part in the process fully. Workshops with firm guidelines, and work groups and
a set schedule and *students who were not sitting there not wading in and
getting dirty and teaching themselves.* I doubt one of them would be
interested in playing guru in a blind forum with an unknown number of students,
no commitments made, no rules set, AND NO PAY for performing a massive,
difficult, and thankless job. Instead they found *another* way to teach to
great big sloppy bodies of people they couldn't see and couldn't rationally
hope to teach and had no way of mentoring. They wrote essays...and books...and
put together editorials. And sometimes they ranted, and screamed, and made
complete and utter idiots of themselves. They said nasty and provocative
things, they decided to screw their "status" points and their egos, and they
MADE A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK.
I've tried other methods to give some of the feedback and background at least
some folks have indicated they would like around here. I've tried to find
other ways of doing this. Short of giving up my life and my own projects and
trying to adopt and mentor the whole bloody fan fic community, this is about
the last creative and constuctive idea I have left: immitate *my* best and most
admired and most provocative teachers. Stand on a soapbox and address general
issues in a loud and offensively opinionated tone--and let folks fight with me.
Here. In their heads. Lying in their beds at night damning my eyes and
wishing an assassin would come along and gut me. But thinking...
At least if you're pissed at me, you aren't sitting at my damned feet with wide
eyes swallowing what I say whole. If you're pissed at me my damned status
isn't there cluttering up the fuckin' discussion and keeping any of us from
really engaging with the topics. If you're throwing bricks at me you at least
have to think long enough to come up with the damned bricks. I ain't gonna be
no nice little white haired mentor with sparkling blue eyes and a kind word and
a hopeful comment for everyone. I don't think it's good for the group, I don't
think it's likely to accomplish a damned thing in this setting, and I know
damned well it's not going to be good for me. The last thing I need to start
seeing myself as is something more radiant and divine and mentorly than the
fat, frustrated, hard working neophyte writer I am.
But at least as a neophyte writer with an occasionally big mouth and the
willingness to make an offensive ass of myself by taking on general issues and
inviting infuriated response, I may do at least some of the kind of work my
favorite "teachers" did for me. Stir up the grey cells. Challenge the
assumptions. Make y'all so pissed you scream "we'll show you!" and go out and
write a few masterpieces without waiting for me, or Macedon, or Alara, or Your
Cruise Director to show you how. Because we *can't*. The only person who can
show you how to think and question and solve the problems of your work is you.
And there is not enough time in the day, or energy in the "mentors' to
successfully play one-on-one seeing-eye mentor to a house this big, with
writers so 'young', when the gurus themselves are so far from being polished
and professional.
I'm a journeyman writer, people. I've made *one* friggin' sale. I have the
usual assortment of rejection letters. Do I think I have more training and
experience at this than a lot of you? Yeah. After all these months hanging
out here writing and reading and paying attention to the posts, I do. Probably
not more than all of you, though. And I'm no WAY ready to pretend I'm the
Ancient of Days, and a proper person to sit in the middle of the circle and
"teach" you all. But if I do the editorial essay and rant thing, you engage me
as an equal, you get mad at me as an equal, and you think about what I'm saying
and about the general ideas involved, instead of tagging along after me waiting
for me to say something *wise.* Or *helpful.* Or *constructive.*
I ain't no *use* that way. I don't like dancing on a soapbox inviting
tomatoes, but at this point I honestly don't know anything more useful I can
do. Not reasonably. At least this way I have a chance of passing on the favor
Ellison and LeGuin and Gardiner have done me, and provoking you to ask
questions, war with me in your minds--and teach YOURSELVES.
I can't even keep up with the number of folks I know well enough to try
teaching one-on-one. But the best one-on-one teacher you'll ever have is an
open and probing mind, a challenging set of ideas to battle, and yourselves.
You are the best teachers you'll ever have. After trying to figure out a way
to give myself to every last one of you who has asked it of me, and failing,
and knowing I will always fail, I'm trying damned hard to find a way to give
you to yourselves. Because I honestly think you'll be better mentors,
teachers, and guides than I could be anyway.
People have indicated over the years that they think I write well. Damned if I
know. But if I do, it's because I engaged with authors on soapboxes as much as
anything. So I am trying to "put my money where my mouth is" and do the one
thing I know that makes a difference *to me.* Challenge your damned minds as
an equal. An offensive, opinionated, loud-mouthed equal who you can mutter
about and fume over...and who you will *question.*
It's a hell of a lot better, to my mind, to give people questions they may
pursue out of anger, than answers they'll accept in comfort.
A loon on a soapbox screaming frustrated generalities about general topics can
be a useful thing. And at least she doesn't have to keep checking to see if
her K-Mart halo is in place.
Ah, hell, folks. I really do like being admired. It's just that I keep
feeling like the wings are too big, the halo too floppy, and the harp gets in
the way of my typing. And I don't know what to do about that. I'm just me, I
love it that people have enjoyed my work, but doing the job well enough to
please you doesn't make me the Ordained, or give me the time, energy, or
experience to try to teach you all, or make me any less human and limited than
I was before I pleased you. Thank you for liking my work. Thank you for
listening, and caring. Thank you for the admiration. I do appreciate it.
But, please, don't turn me into a little plaster saint, and don't expect me to
believe in it, cooperate with it, or abuse it by turning myself into anything
more than a loud-mouthed and opinionated fellow author trying to learn my
trade. Because that's really what I am. I don't know how to *do* Mary Worth,
and I don't see how it could possibly be useful even if I did.
Peg
Pegeel
This one will be a quicky.
Yes, I'll get back to the thread--probably later today. Yes. I will probably
do an essay at some point on traditional Formula Romance, and it's assumptions
and cliches. Do I think those writers who *don't* want to go pro are "ruining
the ng" for the (fair number) who hope to do so someday? Only to the extent
that at the moment *there is no compromise.* We get folks on regularly who
want "more feedback" to improve their writing, whether they want to be "pro" or
not. We have many folks who do want to go pro, and want to find some way for
the fan fic writing to lead to that someday. I can come up with eight or nine
just off the top of my head. But as set up, the ng *won't* do a lot of that
unless they're damned creative in their use of it. Why? 'Cause, damn it, it
doesn't lead folks to thinking about writing, or questioning what they and
others do. I *like* the fact that this place is laid back and egalitarian. I
like the fact that anyone at any level can post here without facing in instant
barage of personal abuse regarding their various lacks and shortcomings. I
don't want to see the place turned into venom-central.
But if the place is going to be more useful, to more people, we've got to find
*some* way to make it a forum for critical thinking and discussion and debate.
I'm not sure that criting each other's stories is the best way to accomplish
that, having watched how the group functions. But at least we can all have
discussions like Alara and I just had, and challange each other a bit on a
general level. Ask a few questions. Make a few flagrantly annoying statements
*without* pillorying any one of the company. Talk about what we've read, and
learned, and thought. What *we* think we see when we go through fan fic and
find recurring patterns, recurring problems, general assumptions that don't
seem to be questioned.
So, I'm experimenting. Trying to find ways to break up the clubbish lethargy
*without* destroying the positive, egalitarian traits I like about the place.
Trying to find things that work. You try too. There are too many people here
who, whether they want to go pro someday or just want to improve their hobby
writing, are NOT GETTING the input they want and need. That tends to be
expressed as a request for feedback--but I'm often not convinced feedback is
the best answer. Maybe general discussions of lit and fan fic are. At least
it's worth a shot...
Peg
Ariana Lilcamp
Alara wrote:
- : Tangent: I once was reading something about writing, much along these
- : lines... oh, five years ago? Actually, it was in the middle of a novel.
- : Wish I could find it again. The author was learning to write, and was
- : talking with some disgust about how bad romance novel leads were usually
- : so unrealistic, so she made all her bad romance novel leads (she knew
- : herself :) ) at least physically realistic, rather than the tiny girls
- : with the dainty feet, the slim-but-subtly-womanly-figures, and of course
- : the long wavy red hair to go with their fiery tempers. No one looked like
- : that, the narrator protested! Why couldn't they have big feet and plain
- : black hair? Well, I'll just say I cracked up (those who know me know why)
- : and kinda kept an eye out for the original stereotype. I never found it.
- : I bet it's out there. When I arrived in role-playing Pern a few years
- : ago, nearly half the female characters at least had the red hair.
-
- Hah! While I try to avoid the stereotype of having all the characters be
- beautiful myself, the tiny woman with dainty feet, slim but subtly womanly
- figure (at least, five years and 20 pounds ago), and long wavy red hair
- is me! (5 ft 0, 125 lbs but was better looking when I was 105, size 6
- shoes and I used to have red hair down to mid-back, and it is *very*
- wavy.) However, I don't have a fiery temper.
-
- So the stereotypical romance heroine *isn't* physically unrealistic; it's
- just that when *every* heroine looks like that, it can get very, very
- irritating.
Thanks... that was my point :) (You looked like me! *giggle* Only I've
grown since I read that, and 5'3" isn't all that short. But the hair I've
got. And the temper, depending on who you ask.)
- (And no, Mercutio's Naomi Allen was created before she had any idea what
- I look like. Naomi is not based on me in the slightest.)
-
- This was kind of off the topic of the thread, but I had to say it. :-)
Thanks :)
Siesta
Pegeel wrote:
<snip, snip, snip...>
> I've tried other methods to give some of the feedback and background
> at least
> some folks have indicated they would like around here. I've tried to
> find
> other ways of doing this. Short of giving up my life and my own
> projects and
> trying to adopt and mentor the whole bloody fan fic community, this is
> about
> the last creative and constuctive idea I have left: imitate *my* best
I've been following this whole thread rather attentively from the
near-beginning, and I just want you (and everyone else, participants or
not) that you have really *made* me think about you've said. Hard. I
haven't jumped in because I don't have any startlingly original thoughts
to share on this topic, but I have been reflecting a lot over the stark
advice/analysis you've been giving.
I've been a lurker on this newsgroup for a little over six months. I've
seen many works of fanfic posted here (and, unfortunately, don't get to
read 90% of them) and seen different threads picked up, spooled out and
unraveled. But this is one of the first ones I've been really compelled
to add my two bits to. Why? Because Peg's accomplishing her goal in
getting us to think about the reasons we choose to write slash over het,
or Formula over Literary (and until I read Peg's post, I didn't even
know of these two types!).
I agree with Peg that we need more of these discussions, but we can't
just have two people (Alara and Peg) duking it out. Everyone needs to
jump in and get wet. Give examples. Share your experiences. Tell us
about lessons you've learned the hard way and why they're important to
heed when writing your stories. I'd rather take a good discussion and
get involved in it than post my stories/poems here.
People tell me that I have talent. Fine. But as much as compliments
encourage me, it helps me much more if I know the theory behind
different aspects of writing -- because that's going to improve my
writing in the long run when I apply what I've learned here and turn it
to my future work. I can't get this sort of discussion elsewhere because
my connections with writers off the 'Net are sadly lacking. Believe me,
I can read a great deal of fanfic in my day-to-day life off the
computer. Some of it's terrible, some it's okay and some is just
excellent -- exactly like the mix we tend to get here. But I don't have
a wide enough range of experience to tell the people with not-so-great
stories WHY this character shouldn't be saying or doing that, or WHY
this dialogue just isn't convincing enough to the reader. If I can get
the experience here, then I'll be able to read better, write better, and
edit better: and I hardly think I'll be the only one here benefiting in
this way.
> But at least as a neophyte writer with an occasionally big mouth and
> the
> willingness to make an offensive ass of myself by taking on general
> issues and
> inviting infuriated response, I may do at least some of the kind of
> work my
> favorite "teachers" did for me. Stir up the grey cells. Challenge
> the
> assumptions. Make y'all so pissed you scream "we'll show you!" and go
> out and
> write a few masterpieces without waiting for me, or Macedon, or Alara,
> or Your
> Cruise Director to show you how. Because we *can't*. The only person
> who can
> show you how to think and question and solve the problems of your work
> is you.
> And there is not enough time in the day, or energy in the "mentors' to
>
> successfully play one-on-one seeing-eye mentor to a house this big,
> with
> writers so 'young', when the gurus themselves are so far from being
> polished
> and professional.
>
> People have indicated over the years that they think I write well.
> Damned if I
> know. But if I do, it's because I engaged with authors on soapboxes as
> much as
> anything. So I am trying to "put my money where my mouth is" and do
> the one
> thing I know that makes a difference *to me.* Challenge your damned
> minds as
> an equal. An offensive, opinionated, loud-mouthed equal who you can
> mutter
> about and fume over...and who you will *question.*
>
> It's a hell of a lot better, to my mind, to give people questions they
> may
> pursue out of anger, than answers they'll accept in comfort.
Sometimes anger is the best -- and *only* -- stimuli people will
actually heed.
Peg, I'm not one of those people who regards you as a "be-all-end-all"
to this newsgroup, but I really believe what you say is worth listening
to. Seriously. And responding to as well. No one can read minds, and if
you have a good thought to say, then say it, everyone. Trust me, many of
us will be glad you did.
~ Siesta, hoping she hasn't overstepped her boundaries here.......
--
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Siesta @-}--
sie...@innocent.com
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Looking for quality fanfic? Look no farther!
* * * Nightwatch (...oh, what goes on in the shadows...) * * *
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/apocalypse/153/
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which
ones to keep." -- Scott Adams
"If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy long
ago."
-- George Porter
"If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either." --
Dick Cavert
Ariana
<snip>
>
> On the other hand, I can tell there are some distinctly recurring
> themes to K/Du work (Marlissa, thanks for being the one I'm replying to.
> *giggle*) so I would tend to think that if we are writing formula, we are
> all writing the same two or three. Maybe it's because there's so few of
> us. Maybe we actually thought about the characters and they just ended
up
> behaving in predictable ways.
Although I do not agree that *all* het fanfiction is by essence formulaic
(though I have come across a few too many fiery redhead Mary Sues on this
ng :), it is true that once you scrutinise a given pairing, you're bound to
find similar themes. One of the reasons I lost interest in writing P/C
stories (which is where I started), is that I felt everything had been
explored.
Because of the sheer bulk of stories on this theme, a lot of stories end up
covering the same ground and most of the romances tend to conform to a
certain stereotype. Some event occurs (the crash in Generations is a
favourite) and Picard and Crusher finally admit their feelings for each
other (favourite location: a stereotypical French rural background :). They
discuss loneliness, they discuss Jack, they discuss Wesley... and sometimes
even Q and Vash, or Ronin and Odan.
To some extent, you could say the stories conform to a formula, but the
fact is, it's very difficult to write P/C without covering the same themes.
Not everyone is going to go out on a limb and write "Mommy's Bad Little
Girl" :) and if you want to write a good, solid romance between Picard and
Crusher some themes are inevitable. They're going to talk about Wesley and
Jack - not the Cardassian Occupation of Bajor, because that's what is
relevant to them.
The formula may be less noticeable in K/Du stories because there are fewer
around, *and* we have the benefit of the constantly-changing Kira/Dukat
dynamic. A story set during "Return to Grace" when Dukat was a renegade
("Halfway") puts the characters in a totally different situation than one
which takes place during the Cardassian/Dominion reoccupation of DS9 ("The
Agreement"). (BTW, I do not mean to say that the P/C relationship hasn't
had its ups and downs - a story set while she's married to Jack will
function differently to one that is set nowadays)
But as Ariana L pointed out, we still all have to cover the same ground -
the Occupation, Tora Naprem, his arrogance, her prejudice. As more and more
stories come out, we may begin to spot trends and find storylines that were
once original within that genre turning into formulas for future stories.
> So... is the K/Du formula a Formula borrowed from Traditional Romance?
IMO, yes. Not necessarily to one single Formula, given the flutuating
relationship I described above, but yes, I do believe there are plenty of
parallels for K/Du in existing stories. When we were writing "The
Agreement", the other Collaborators and I discussed the possibility of
using a quote from "Richard III" as our epigram. In that play, Shakespeare
shows Richard seduce Ann, the wife of a man he has just murdered. And
stories where long-time enemies are thrown together and become friends (or
lovers) have always been popular.
> If it is, does that make it less desirable to read?
Not in my opinion; the originality and quality have to be in the writing
and how the necessary themes are explored. Aside from the setting and the
details (Bajoran spirituality, space travel, whatever), chances are pretty
strong the underlying themes of the romance have already been used in
purely human settings, possibly a long time ago. Also, once it has been
used a few times, any pairing runs the risk of becoming a formula itself.
But the art of good writing is to be able to give the reader a new take on
the formula, whether it be a romance formula or a genre formula.
As such, I am not discouraged by the idea that the basic stories I'm
telling have already been told by many other writers. X meets Y, X hates Y,
Y fancies X, Y and X are put into a situation where they discover their
mutual attraction, X decides Y isn't so bad... they live happily ever
after. My hope is that good writing, good dialogue and a good treatment of
the basic concept will somehow set my story apart. Whether I succeed or not
is then a matter of talent and inspiration.
> And I hereby offer my work for examples, good *or* bad *or* general.
I'll
> betcha some of the writers asking for crit would be willing to do the
same
> thing.
Certainly -- though between the two of us, anyone wanting to offer
criticism had better enjoy K/Du stories. :) But seriously, it would be
interesting to see some discussion of works so as to judge what is good
formula and what isn't - I suspect we wouldn't be able to site examples of
bad formula, but detailed examples of good uses of formulas would be
welcome.
Marlissa Campbell
"Ariana" <ari...@usa.net> wrote:
>Ariana Lilcamp <thiss...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><thissen.ns-25...@far0727.urh.uiuc.edu>...
>> I can't think of any right now about *people* I don't like, except for
>> Ariana's "Voices of the Prophets". I am NOT a Sisko fan, but that one
>made
>> me enjoy and believe in the S/Du couple.
>Yeah, the weird thing for me is that I don't like Sisko either, but there I
>had to write a whole story in his pov!
>The same goes for Troi in "With me"; in both cases, I chose the characters
>because they were the only ones that fit the situation, allowing me to
>explore that particular facet of Dukat and Picard respectively. I found
>that exploring and fleshing out a character I don't much like on the series
>was actually a rewarding experience. Which, I suppose, could bring about
>the subject of what it's like to *write* about characters one doesn't
>like...
Yes, I was having rather similar thoughts about Kira. I really didn't
like her much at all until I started trying to use her in stories.
Then I had to spend time thinking through the motivations which could
make her behave the way she does. Although I still don't always agree
with her decisions, or 'approve' of her actions, I am a lot more
sympathetic to her point of view (like she cares what *I* think ;)).
Of course that trick really didn't work for Sisko -- I tried a few
scenes in his POV, and, you know, I like him even *less* than before.
Being in that man's head was *not* much fun.
Marlissa
Marlissa Campbell
al...@netcom.com (Aleph Press) wrote:
>Marlissa Campbell (cpad...@idt.net) wrote:
>: peg...@aol.com (Pegeel) wrote:
>: Truly interesting discussion, even if both you and Alara are (IMHO)
>: making a whole helluva lot of sweeping generalizations.
>Well, o'course. :-) You can't really discuss a thing like this without
>making sweeping generalizations.
Sure, to some extent we *have* to work with categories. What I object
to is pushing a generalization to the point of inaccuracy -- to the
apparent purpose of setting up a straw-man so one can look clever in
pulling him apart. I'm not saying *you* did this Alara, it was really
Peg's comments I was taking exception too. And I don't mean to insult
her either -- I just wish she'd been more measured in her statements.
They truly offended me.
[trying for a bit of judicious snipping]
>: I do see your point about the slash milieu being a bit more forgiving
>: of romantic cliches. However, I would just like to comment that --
>: knowing I have *far* less experience of the fan fic world than either
>: you or Alara -- I think this phenonomon applies to *whatever* one
>: likes. I know personally, I am far more tolerant of stories which
>: happen to be set in my favorite series and involve characters I like
>: and am interested in -- who doesn't feel this way?
>Oh, of course. I'll forgive a P/Q a lot more than I will a P/K, though
>both are slash. We *all* cut what we like more slack. But I think Peg's
>point is that part of the *reason* many people who aren't fond of
>romantic cliches like slash better than het is because, in general, slash
>disguises those cliches better.
Does it? While I make no pretense of having read exhaustively, I've
seen plenty of both good and not-so-good stories in both slash and
non-slash formats. My point was *I* demand more of slash, because I'm
not automatically prone to like it. Some of what Peg said made me
think that she harbors similar feelings. Hence, how much of this
facet of the discussion *really* is about generalities rather than
personal preferences?
>Yeah. I look for great stuff that I don't usually read (I haven't read
>anything but what I really really like in a year, and that's why I
>started these threads; I wanted to be pointed to good P/C and good J/C
>and other worthwhile stories that even the people who don't *like* those
>genres think is great.) But I'll ignore anything I don't like, unless I
>have to archive it. (There was a J/C I checked out, briefly, because its
>tuitle made me think it had Q in it, and it was so bad... I mean, really.
>Janeway, literally, swooned into Chakotay's strong arms. I am not making
>this up.)
I believe you. One of my pet peeves is stories in which
Janeway/Chakotay or Picard/Crusher behave like, well, college students
-- instead of the middle-aged people they are. Please don't get me
wrong, I'm not suggesting that 'swooning' is endemic among college-age
women, it's just another feature of many stories which puts *me* off.
>: >That's why I feel the het writer, if she is going to succeed, has to be
>: >resoundingly good: either resoundingly and knowingly good at High Formula, or
>: >at Literary writing. She doesn't get the free tabloid ride of naughty Jim and
>: >Spock boffing away in pon far.
>: 'She"???? Okay, probably most are, but your biases are showing here!
>Not really. Either "he" or "she" can be used as a grammatical generic
>(true grammarians will tell you it has to be "he", but feminists despise
>that, and he/she is ugly and they is ungrammatic.) In a field where you
>can reasonably assume that over 60% of the subject are going to be one
>sex or the other, it's okay to use that pronoun as the generic.
Sorry, I'm just a working scientist and not up to date on my feminist
jargon. I wasn't suggesting that she (I assume Peg's a *she* from her
name and many other comments of hers which I have read <g>) should
have used *he*. Again, I suppose it's my background and profession,
but I prefer precision in language -- I'd just as soon skip the
politcal loading. To my mind 'the writer', 'the author', 'the poster'
would have been more accurate -- or 'they', if a pronoun was really
needed. But that is my personal prefence, and not something there is
any point in debating here.
>: Excuse me! These are not *just* sweeping generalizations, Peg, here I
>: think you're being downright insulting. Do you read every single
>: non-slash story? If you don't, how do you know this is true?
>Well, no, it isn't true. I like to think that my original female
>character in "Only Human" (who so far is not romantically involved with
>Q, but give it time) is not a Mary Sue, nor a traditional romance
>heroine. I have certainly read P/C where Crusher wasn't a typical romance
>heroine. Many, many original female characters are neither Mary Sues nor
>typical romance heroines. And I think P/T might ahve a lot of
>possibilities, since both Paris and Torres are so thoroughly screwed up.
>I think Peg was basically referring to what she was familiar with, not
>really "all that's left", and she phrased it badly.
Well, I *hope* she doesn't believe that. I just wish she'd rethought
what it sounded like before posting. As you say, it simply isn't
true. This gets back to what I said above about stretching
generalizations for the purpose of discussion -- to the point of
absurdity. In my view, by doing this, she totally undermined what
probably were some valid points.
> If we enjoy more transgressive stuff, it seems that we
>go into slash. This means that people who enjoy watching strong women in
>non-traditional relationships can't find much to read, because most of
>the people who want to write about strong people in non-traditional
>relationships are doing it in slash, in my opinion (Peg thinks that even
>the slash isn't as non-traditional as I think it is, and there's
>probably a grain of truth to that, too.)
Here's where I really have to disagree with *you*. I've read all (I
think) of the Kira/Dukat stories posted in the last year, and a fair
amount of O/K and other Kira stories as well. I can't say I've seen
*anything* which left her diminished as a result of whatever romance
she was engaged in. Of course, if you particularly dislike Dukat, you
won't like *those* stories, no matter how well Kira is portrayed.
>: I don't know what stories you've been reading, but only a portion of
>: what I see is *half* as bad as you're suggesting. Ok, maybe your
>: standards are higher than mine, but I don't think I'm all that easy to
>: please.
>Well, recommend sometihng! :-) Part of the reason I started this
>discussion was to be directed to The Good Stuff. I don't want to
>humiliate anyone in public by pointing them out as examples of what I
>think is bad, so I'm not going to cite cases to prove you wrong. Rather,
>I hope you will prove *me* wrong, by citing some great stories I overlooked.
Well, dip into some Kira stories. If you want a couple of examples,
well, okay, start with 'Cardassian Heat' and 'Halfway' -- these both
happen to be K/Du, and both are on the archive (I think). You might
not like either one for various reasons, but please let us know if you
think Kira ended up being degraded by her participation in them.
(Gently please -- since I've just volunteered stories by a couple of
other people <g>).
I've seen some good ones featuring Janeway too, but I can't think of
any specific examples off the top of my head (apart from the usual,
that is).
>: And I certainly hope you'll let us all know *when* you find a
>: publisher. I'll look forward to reading it -- whatever it happens to
>: be about, I'm sure it will be a fine piece of writing.
>: Okay, fine. I'd love to see discussions about writing: discussions
>: which would be interesting, helpful, and encouraging. Your current
>: thesis, I'm sorry to say, is *interesting* but it sure the hell isn't
>: helpful, and it couldn't be more *discouraging*. You've successfully
>: dissed *everybody* except a small handful of *elite* writers on this
>: ng.
>Actually, I think part of her argument is that more of the writers who
>write slash, or het, and are not what you're calling the "elite" writers
>should think about what their base assumptions are, and *why* do they
>write what they write, and *are* they using convenient, easy formulas? If
>so, is that what they want to do? If you *want* to play with formula, no
>problem! But know that you're doing it. If you don't want to, think about
>But only if you *want* to.
Well, you know, you've stated it very succinctly in a paragraph,
without resorting to harangues and insulting stereotypes. And yes, in
the abstract, I certainly know that what you say is true. In the
*particular* would I recognize if I were falling into a common trap?
Possibly, possibly not.
But I have to say that *I* saw nothing in Peg's post which would in
any way help me make that distinction. Now, that in itself is fine --
if her intent was merely to express her opinion, well, she certainly
did that. Heck, I even agree with a certain amount of what I *think*
she was trying to say.
But if her purpose was to convey some useful information to other
writers in this group -- as I gather from her response to me, *was* a
large part of her goal -- then, IMO, she failed miserably. If
insulting people and pissing them off is a good way to 'get their gray
matter moving' and lead them to some self-realized moments of
inspiration... well, then let's just invite Cronin over here and
*really* get this ng on track. I'm sorry, now *I'm* grossly
exaggerating in order to make a point, and frankly, it's a technique I
find very objectionable.
>: You want it different? Then put your money where your mouth is --
>: *please* -- *pretty please*. Post some essays that will teach us
>: something instead of telling us how much of your time we've wasted.
>: If YOU start some threads about writing, either in general, or
>: critiquing specific stories, it would have a good chance of igniting a
>: *fad*. You have the experience and 'stature' on this group to do
>: that. Find some writers who are posting stories which are at least
>: sort of like what you would want to see, enlist their cooperation, and
>: get some discussion going of how their work could be improved. I'll
>: bet you all of my replicator rations for next week that it would be a
>: widely appreciated step-in-the-right-direction.
>This is a great idea, actually. I don't think Peg *is* saying people have
>wasted her time, but pointing out stories that hit is one thing (and I
>tried to do a thread to do that.) Pointing out stories that almost hit,
>and suggesting how they could be fixed, would be better. But it's so
>hard-- critique, good critique, takes a lot of time and effort, and
>you've got to worry about personalities. Can this writer take it if I
>critique her work? (generic her) Should I *do* that publicly? If I don't,
>other people can't learn from it.
Well, that's why I suggested 'enlisting their cooperation' -- that is,
write them privately first, and *ask* if they're up for a public
discussion. I think a lot of people would be -- I would, even
realizing full well it might not be very flattering.
>Actually, Emily Salzfass put up a web page for fan critique. I don't
>recall the URL, but the idea was, writers post drafts and other things
>they want crit on, after they have given detailed crit to two other
>stories
Yes, I saved her note (somewhere) although I haven't checked out her
page yet. It's a good idea. In my case (and I'm sure most of us
operate the same way), I have found people with whom I'm able to make
these exchanges on a personal basis. I've been learning a lot from
that about *how* to critisize the work of others in a useful way --
*very* difficult, and something I'm learning a lot from to apply to my
own work (both fiction and nonfiction).
However, what I was getting at was that it would be very informative
to see this done on a more public basis. Scary, for sure, but useful
to *everyone* who's interested in improving, not just the individual
whose story is being discussed.
Or even not just looking at individual stories -- one could, for
example, have a discussion of characterization... either some
particular character, or characters in general, and illustrate it with
examples from several stories.
It's just that, like it or not, if that sort of discussion is ever
going to take place here, much less predominate, it will be up to
folks like you, and Peg, and others who have recognized 'credentials'
to take the lead. Otherwise it is *too* likely to lead to much
resentment and 'Who the hell are you anyway?' slanging matches.
Marlissa
Marlissa Campbell
thiss...@uiuc.edu (Ariana Lilcamp) wrote:
>(Marlissa Campbell) wrote:
>- peg...@aol.com (Pegeel) wrote:
>- I'm going to snip most of Peg's post -- not because it's not well
>- worth repeating -- but because it's so long that leaving it intact in
>- a reply would ...be even longer. So please forgive me if I seem to be
>- taking certain things out of context. I'm just trying to be concise.
>I'm following this same logic :) Secondly, this is *stream of
>consciousness*, NOT an organized essay. Forgive the organization, or lack
>thereof. And I'm usually talking to Peg, NOT Marlissa.
Once again, I'm also going to try and do some careful snipping here.
>On with the post...
>asking others the same question about f/f or het... and if they answer
>"There aren't any"... then they are welcome to disagree with me. That may
>well be the perspective here. But I thought K/I held a *lot* of promise,
>more than most of the m/m pairings.)
And quite a story you made out of it too -- hot, funny, and
thought-provoking, all at the same time!
I'm nodding in agreement here. I'll worry about our little cult genre
when I see one of those stories -- set a few years in the future, and
they're happily living in domestic bliss on Cardassia with a whole
host of little 'Badassians'. Kira has learned to cook with Yarmok
sauce, and Dukat has renounced his evil ways and taken up farming....
>K/Du, I'd argue, caught us with some of the same novel thrill as slash
>catches others. The two of them, the utter weirdness, the intensity of
>the emotional baggage Paramount hands us, gives us a lot of fodder for
>these formula stories to seem good to us... this is why I bring it up as
>an example...
Putting the two of them together in a story -- regardless of romantic
content -- also opens up the whole fascinating backdrop of their
contrasting cultures and violent history to explore.
>You can call K/Du a subset of hard-core fans... (within your T.R.
>category? That question's still open -- How'd you classify it?) ...you
>can even call it a cult... but don't say it's trash without a better
>justification of why Kira wouldn't follow those patterns...
Yes, that was in the back of my mind too. I don't think *any* of the
K/Du stories, or the O/K stories I've read, *or* your K/I story
reduced Kira to the kind of slobbering heroine both Peg and Alara seem
to be objecting to.
Sure, for example, whatever it's many other failings, 'Skin Deep'
could fairly be called a 'bodice ripper'. But hell: *she* got all the
good action stuff, *she* ripped her own damn bodice off, *she* got on
top and stayed there, *and* in the end... well they certainly did
*not* get married and live happily ever after. So is that formula, or
not? <shrug> Do I care? Not really. It came out how it came out.
And I knew very well when I posted it that Dukat fans, and Kira/Dukat
fans in particular, would probably like it well enough, but that those
who just don't like Dukat, or can't bear the thought of him getting
his scaly gray hands on Kira (even for a brief interlude), wouldn't
bother to download it.
Personally, my biggest worry in working with that pairing at all is to
*not* whitewash Dukat, but still give him some appeal. I never
considered Kira as some icon of womanhood whose dignity needed
preserving (she is *quite* capable of doing that for herself) -- I
just try to make her true to the character as portrayed on the show
(if, perhaps, just a little more *flexible*;)).
>Re your comment about people writing fanfic off as exactly that... Sorry.
>There is some. There is more. Marlissa writes some of it!
Now you're being too kind. But honestly, I don't think any of us have
*ever* reduced Kira to 'swooning' or 'sad eyed', and this is the
proximate reason why I objected so strongly to that stereotype of het
romances.
>Some of us are *not* going the direction of pro writing. I for one
>wouldn't write at all without the benefit of the free rides. (The ones
>provided by an established character-base, that is. I write some for
>myself that I'll never hand out to anyone.) Some of us write just because
>it's fun to share our insights this way on the characters and settings we
>love. Shells, what *would* a physicist do with fiction-published credits
>to her name? Hide them?! I'm sorry if my kind spoil the group for you...
>I hope there's a compromise.
Hear, hear. I spend real life writing technical, highly structured
stuff.... It's fulfilling in it's own way. I enjoy fan fiction
because of the freedom from the dreaded passive voice, the lack of
word count limitations, the absence of policy and legal constraints,
*and* the opportunity to unfetter my imagination. I would no way want
to trade that for worrying about whether or not a piece would sell.
That does not mean, however, that I'm not interested in improving to
the best of my ability.
>By all means post 'em, Peg! I really am curious ... maybe someone who
>knows High Formula could explain it to me and I'm sure a few others? Not
>in general, but some of the characteristics of it? The rules? Are they
>like sonnets, where you fill in the syllables/scenes to a certain meter
>and rhyme scheme? How can we decide whether we want to embrace or discard
>the Formula in our works? The formula? (Capitals thing again -- F for
>overall, f for subplots and details like swooning. Doubt that's right,
>but...) Even the FAQ sorts of fanfic-theory discussion posts were
>fascinating to me the first time I read 'em -- I probably have less of a
>literary background than most of the group, but that doesn't mean sharing
>won't benefit more than just me.
>And I hereby offer my work for examples, good *or* bad *or* general. I'll
>betcha some of the writers asking for crit would be willing to do the same
>thing.
I wasn't really suggesting that Peg, or anyone else, provide detailed
crit on stories -- mine, or anyone else's. My own small experience
of that has taught me that it is a *big* job, and not to be undertaken
casually. However, like Ariana L., I'd be happy (well, maybe not
*happy*, but willing) for my few little offerings to be used for
examples as needed as well.
Marlissa <who new she'd bitten off a big job just in responding to
Peg's post.>
Marlissa Campbell
peg...@aol.com (Pegeel) wrote:
>Hi, Marlissa-
>No. Not offended you joined in. Not offended your offended by some of what
>I'm saying.
>Are Alara and I making sweeping generalizations?
>Of course. It's a general discussion, on a general field, in an informal and
>editorial mode.
I've already explained in my response to Alara that I believe there is
a big difference between establishing useful categories for the
purpose of discussion, and creating exagerrated straw-men.
And for what it's worth, I am making general statements
>because I prefer dealing with general topics of grumble *without* turning any
>specific writer into a scapegoat.
Instead you created a neat little collection of boxes, shoved everyone
into one or the other of them, and then scapegoated the boxes. That's
an improvement?
>As for your suggestion that I use my vaunted status on the group and my skills
>and training to elect myself group mum, dispenser of wisdom and crit, and
>general Professor of Fan Fic? Put my money where my mouth is?
I certainly wasn't suggesting that you put yourself forward as the
arbitar of all wisdom. Merely that, if you want to see that kind of
discussion, you'd have a better chance of getting it started than most
of us.
Nor was I suggesting that you take it upon yourself to publicly
critique a lot of individual works. What I did hope you *might*
consider would be, for example: chose a handful of stories which
feature het romances with various female protagenists, ask the authors
if they're up for a public discussion, and then give some examples of
how you think they fell into, or avoided, common pitfalls -- in hopes
others might follow the lead and pick up the thread.
If you don't have the time or desire to do that, *fine*. But *you*
were the one complaining about the discussions (or lack thereof),
hence *my* reaction.
>Marlissa, for going on three bloody years now I have been trying to figure out
>a way to help this group get involved in the kinds of thinking and interaction
>I honestly think would be usefull and practically managable in this forum.
>I've posted messages, done behind the scenes crit of others' work, I've had
>exchanges both public and private regarding lit theory. I presented a
>bloody-long essay on crit, having asked the group if they wanted to *discuss*
>crit issues, presented it *as a discussion piece*, requested folks to comment
>and debate. Damned thing took me about a week to write.
Yes, I recall that essay. I have it saved, and have referred to it as
well. It's very good, and a very helpful reference. Thanks again for
giving it to us! But sorry, I can't recall anything about it to
discuss -- you pretty much covered all the bases. Where the tricky
part comes in is *applying* those priniciples to actually doing some
critiquing. If people did that in plain view, then we could all see
not only what was good and bad about the story, but what was good and
bad about the critique!
>You said "put my money where my mouth is." It seems not to have occured to you
>that *I am.*
You're right there -- that thought did not occur to me. What I saw
were a lot of inflammatory comments about stereotyped newbies, het
writers, and slash writers. If anyone else had posted that essay, I
fear this group would already be in the middle of yet another boring
flame war about het vrs slash. So, like it or not, the fact that that
hasn't happened rather defines the status you, Peg Robinson, have been
accorded here.
>I've tried other methods to give some of the feedback and background at least
>some folks have indicated they would like around here. I've tried to find
>other ways of doing this. Short of giving up my life and my own projects and
>trying to adopt and mentor the whole bloody fan fic community, this is about
>the last creative and constuctive idea I have left: immitate *my* best and most
>admired and most provocative teachers. Stand on a soapbox and address general
>issues in a loud and offensively opinionated tone--and let folks fight with me.
Fine. But I'm objecting to the manner in which you presented your
argument, *not* to your basic point which was (I *think*, if I can
tease it out of there) that fan fic writers (*whatever* sexual
preference/series/pairing they prefer to work in) shouldn't get too
complacent just because they garner a little (or a lot of) praise.
Did I understand you correctly? Did you really need however many
megabytes and a whole series of offensive stereotypes to say that?
> Here. In their heads. Lying in their beds at night damning my eyes and
>wishing an assassin would come along and gut me. But thinking...
Oh, let's not get carried away. I'm sorry Peg. I don't much care for
fights, and I've no desire to have one with *you*. But if your goal
was to piss people off -- well you *did* succeed with me. If your
goal was to do that 'in order to teach me something' I didn't already
know, sorry, no sale here.
Marlissa
Lawrence Sparks
(I am leaving all of Peg's post it's not that long)
I was just thinking last week that it has been a long time since we had a
pet peeves thread. What was the last one about the proper use of
apostrophes? anyway it was just after I posted a little story called 'ts'
(Itsi) Whoops! anyway I did learn a lot from the thread if nobody ells did
or not.
(On a side note I believe the ng is finally starting to get back to where
it was before Ahmed stopped by. A big sigh of relief and a "welcome back
y'all" :)
---------------
LMSparks
to reply remove the SPAM or use lmsp...@directinter.net
come see my pad at http://www.directinter.net/~lmsparks
experimental Author Index for a.s.c
http://members.supernews.com/lmsparks
----------
Pegeel <peg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980128174...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
I
Zepp Weasel
On 28 Jan 1998 17:47:06 GMT, peg...@aol.com (Pegeel) wrote:
>This one will be a quicky.
>
>Yes, I'll get back to the thread--probably later today. Yes. I will probably
>do an essay at some point on traditional Formula Romance, and it's assumptions
>and cliches.
Please do, when ye've the time, lass -- for one thing, I have been
told some of *my* stuff was "very romantic", and it blew me away,
since I loathe romance, endeavour, as afar as possible, never to read
it, and certes never intended to post any. OK, I'll make one
exception -- "To Lay Me Down" was shameless mush -- it was based on a
dream which in turn was hopeless h/c mush. But I am genuinely
curious, and of course, managed to miss the post you originally made
that got 'em all flapping and whirling.
Sorry Marlissa -- no offence meant at all to thee, but for my money,
Peg did exactly what she's quoted as having wanted to do -- got a
bunch of us off our asses and talking -- even me! YMMV, of course.
And should I be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any
knowledge of my actions... ;-)>
>Do I think those writers who *don't* want to go pro are "ruining
>the ng" for the (fair number) who hope to do so someday? Only to the extent
>that at the moment *there is no compromise.* We get folks on regularly who
>want "more feedback" to improve their writing, whether they want to be "pro" or
>not. We have many folks who do want to go pro, and want to find some way for
>the fan fic writing to lead to that someday. I can come up with eight or nine
>just off the top of my head.
Moi, for one, I should live so long, I should be so lucky...
>But as set up, the ng *won't* do a lot of that
>unless they're damned creative in their use of it. Why? 'Cause, damn it, it
>doesn't lead folks to thinking about writing, or questioning what they and
>others do. I *like* the fact that this place is laid back and egalitarian. I
>like the fact that anyone at any level can post here without facing in instant
>barage of personal abuse regarding their various lacks and shortcomings. I
>don't want to see the place turned into venom-central.
Ni yo. Been there, Done that, and it was boring and useless. This is
a good place, folks.
>But if the place is going to be more useful, to more people, we've got to find
>*some* way to make it a forum for critical thinking and discussion and debate.
>I'm not sure that criting each other's stories is the best way to accomplish
>that, having watched how the group functions. But at least we can all have
>discussions like Alara and I just had, and challange each other a bit on a
>general level. Ask a few questions. Make a few flagrantly annoying statements
>*without* pillorying any one of the company. Talk about what we've read, and
>learned, and thought. What *we* think we see when we go through fan fic and
>find recurring patterns, recurring problems, general assumptions that don't
>seem to be questioned.
FWIW, I would add another recommendation to the list of useful books
-- Stephen King's "Danse Macabre", in which he talks at length about
what's worked for him, what doesn't, and some of what he's learned
over the years. It was the book that first got me seriously thinking
not just, as I always had, oh, I want to do this, but "I CAN do this!"
Also one by Orson Scott Card -- The Folk of the Fringe. Neat stories,
and some good bridge material in there. In fact, Orson Scott Card in
general is quite good -- he's done a couple essays about the Clarion
workshops <you listening out there Q? That's what *I* want for
Solstice!> that I found informative and very useful. They showed up
in Asimov's, as I recall -- should be on their index...
>So, I'm experimenting. Trying to find ways to break up the clubbish lethargy
>*without* destroying the positive, egalitarian traits I like about the place.
>Trying to find things that work. You try too. There are too many people here
>who, whether they want to go pro someday or just want to improve their hobby
>writing, are NOT GETTING the input they want and need. That tends to be
>expressed as a request for feedback--but I'm often not convinced feedback is
>the best answer. Maybe general discussions of lit and fan fic are. At least
>it's worth a shot...
>
> Peg
Works fur me -- I flamed out of academia in a whiskey bottle a long
time ago, so never got my fill of such things. And in fact am
horribly ignorant of the conventions of this my chosen craft -- but
*very* willing to learn.
Though I'm sorry, I don't know if I'll ever write romantic het stuff
--I enjoy reading *some* such things -- but would feel like a moose in
a tutu trying to write it. Apologetic shrug> So it goes...
Greywolf the Wanderer, enjoying the hell out of this thread
----------------------------------------------------
American conservatives will do anything -- lie, cheat, steal,
defame, entrap.
-- All in the cause of convincing the public that Clinton has
shaky ethics.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat!
Pegeel
Marlissa, I've had overnight to think about *what* I wanted to reply to this
one, and while there are other points in it I want to look over again, I
espescially want to take up one. And for once I can be *short.*
You state that the fact that Alara and I haven't been flamed is an indication
of my (our?) status. Quite possible--we're two of the Old Broads Around the
News Group. But whether it's true or not, it's also indicative of something
that *I* find more disturbing and destructive. Simply put, this is one of the
most thin-skinned groups of people I have ever encountered, to a degree that
*I* believe that a lot of the "lack of discussion" problems I have are caused
by people too damned scared to step in any say anything, even when their intent
is clearly non-malicious, for fear of getting flamed. I have seen more silly,
infuriated flames break out over here for less reason than on any other ng I
hang on or lurk. And I've seen less serious discussion.
I'm curious about whether my perception that there are a lot of scared,
cautious, silent folks around here. There's no *provable* way to establish
that for all time. But I can at least attempt a "show of hands." So I'm
establishing two new threads, entitled "Peg's question: yes" and "Peg's
question: no". Maybe folks will comment on what *they* feel about getting into
a discussion here. It may at least give *me* a sense of how many other folks
see this place as being awfully hair-triggered.
Peg
Ariana
OdoGoddess <odogo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980128152...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Charlene wrote:
> >"In Prophets' Footsteps" by Ariana, because at the time it was
> >originally posted it made a lot of sense (in other words, before
> >"Waltz"), and maybe because it showed Ziyal true to form. Perhaps also
> >because it didn't show Kira as a submissive, weak female being
> >seduced/protected/confronted by a strong male.
>
> My personal favorite Ariana story is "Just For Tonight".
Different Ariana, BTW. "In Prophets' Footsteps" was by Ariana Lilcamp, but
"Just for tonight" is by me - "just" Ariana. This is simply to clear up any
confusion anyone might have. :)
> She managed to take
> Quark and Ziyal and portray them not only true to character, but also
used
> those little bits of information from the show to flesh out what is a
very
> simple story and make into something more intimate and moving. Like
taking
> into account Ziyal's brutal childhood in a Breen prison and Quark's past
affair
> with a Cardassian woman (Natima) and the fact that he *would* know what
would
> please one.
Thank you very much for your kind comments on this story! I think very few
people have read it because of the unusual pairing, but it was something
which came to mind while I was writing "Babylon", which was recently
reposted on this ng. There was a scene there where I had Quark comfort
Ziyal after she was attacked, and when I reread it, I thought "Hmm... this
is ideal h/c material!"
I must admit that until I started brainstorming on this story, I had never
given Quark much thought, and Ziyal was only important to my story because
she's Dukat's daughter. But I found the process of writing about Quark
(albeit entirely in Ziyal's pov) quite rewarding. These Star Trek
characters never cease to amaze me!
OdoGoddess
>> My personal favorite Ariana story is "Just For Tonight".
>
>Different Ariana, BTW. "In Prophets' Footsteps" was by Ariana Lilcamp, but
>"Just for tonight" is by me - "just" Ariana. This is simply to clear up any
>confusion anyone might have. :)
Apologies. I am terrible with names (and story titles). I had the same
problem with getting my name confused, though, not long after I started posting
a few years back. I'd be reading through various threads and someone would say
"Judith said" or "in Judith's story" and it always kind of took me back. They
were talking about Judith Gran, of course. So in a way, I'm kind of glad most
people just refer to me as OdoGoddess. No confusion there! <g>
(-|-)* Judith
proud Rene-A-holic & ReneAFanList (RAFL) member
"We aren't everybody's cup of tea." Rene Auberjonois, TV Guide
My Page: http://members.aol.com/OdoGoddess/Tales.html
"This is Odo, my lover." Kira, DS9: Meridian
Aleph Press
Ariana Lilcamp (thiss...@uiuc.edu) wrote:
: All I can say is we'd all do well to experiment a little. :) One big
: thing I think Peg missed (my biases show) is that there _ARE_ f/f slash
: writers. Shells, I just posted one such story. I will not claim it as
: good formula-free writing (explanation later) but Peg really seemed to
: write off all slash as m/m. Sorry... I've done het romance, f/f romance,
: and f/f smut, but not m/m anything. I can't be the only one. And,
: because I've been trying to experiment with everything, I'm planning to
: try an m/m or two... but only where the characters in the episodes were
: *begging* for an interlude or follow-up, before anyone thinks I'm doing it
: just for the novelty of doing slash. (The same voice that says, Ariana
: Lilcamp, WHY are you ignoring perfectly good m/m pairings? should be
: asking others the same question about f/f or het... and if they answer
: "There aren't any"... then they are welcome to disagree with me. That may
: well be the perspective here. But I thought K/I held a *lot* of promise,
: more than most of the m/m pairings.)
I agree that K/I has a lot more promise than most m/m pairings... hell,
it's damn near canonical. But the reason for not raising the issue of f/f
slash is that, firstly, a lot of what applies to m/m slash, in Peg's
argument, applies to f/f as well... (certainly the novelty aspect, and
the thrill of the exotic.) Secondly, this is a discussion *about
generalities*. neither Peg nor I think that *every* het story is a
romance formula, or *every* slash story is a cheap sexy thrill. Just, a
lot of them, enough to make generalizations about. And the only
generalization you can make about f/f (which is as sweepingly unfair as
as any of the generalizations we've made) is that women don't write it.
Most of the f/f we see on the archive is written by men. And it follows
very, very different conventions than even most slash-- it's generally
PWP, it generally focuses much more on the physical than the emotional,
and so forth. A sweeping generalization? You betcha. More sweeping than
"most het stories fall into romantic cliches?" No.
So, when you, the female f/f writer, look at a thread about the sweeping
generalizations of fanfic, and don't see yourself or your work there,
it's because you've hit on something so original, so rarely done, that we
*can't* make any generalizations about it. I could probably count on my
hand the number of f/f stories written by women on the archive (well, no,
that's not true. We've recently got a spate of Sevens, since the
prevailing thing seems to be to write lesbian slash with Seven. But
still, it's real rare.) it's not that we overlooked you, it's that you're
working in a field that *has* no cliches yet (or, by peg's thesis,
perhaps it has plenty of cliches but the novelty of it would rpevent
anyone from noticing.)
As for K/Du... I have to admit, I have read exactly two K/Dus. One was
set during Dukat's madness, was recently posted, and was excellent. The
other was kind of a PWP about Kira and dukat having sex and arguing about
it, and I kind of felt it fell into a stereotype of "the man is attracted
to his dangerous enemy, and makes his attraction known; the woman doesn't
want to admit that she is attracted back, and argues about it, but she
really wants him so bad there's a puddle in her pants, but she's not
mature enough to just admit this and either get over it or accept it,
she's got to argue about it and deny it when it's clearly true." This is
kind of *the* oldest romantic cliche about a man and a woman who are
enemies having sex. (There is another cliche, but it doesn't come out of
romance... the heroic man being seduced by the temptress villainness is a
staple of action/adventure, not romance. Romance features the noble
heroine being seduced by the evil villain, and often discovering that he
really isn't evil, he's just Misunderstood.) So K/Du troubles me a little
becacuse the potential for falling into *that* particular cliche (Dukat
redeemed by the love of a good woman; Kira led around by her hormones to
fall into bed with Dukat even if she hates him and everything he stands
for; stuff like that) is very, very strong with that pairing. Now, I
don't know how often you guys *do* fall into that pattern-- as I said, I
haven't read much over the past year-- but one K/Du I read fell into that
pattern, and the other one wasn't really a K/Du, as Dukat threatened to
rape Kira but never did and then she shot him.
I prefer love stories between enemies to be more evenly balanced. More
like Sisko and the Intendant, perhaps. Or Avon and Servalan from B7. They
both *know* they hate everything the other one stands for, but the sexual
attraction is so powerful that *neither* of them wants to deny it. Kira,
as fiery as she is, seems to me to be looking for True Love-- hot sex
with her worst enemy wouldn't interest her. So it would have to be *very*
well written to interest me. But all that being said, and with my biases
in mind, are there any K/Dus you think I would like anyway?
Laura Taylor
Err...
At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own trumpet, you *might*
like "The Serpent and the Hawk" (unless that's the PWP you mentioned,
though I don't think it is - it doesn't sound like what I wrote <G>).
I mention "S&H" because the Dukat-as-mad story you cited was mine as
well ("Bittersweet Revenge"). It's got sex - hot sex? I dunno <G> - a
plot and a healthy dose of h/c (I know how you love h/c) balanced (I
hope) with strength and equanimity. You may not care for the ending -
I kind of tossed it off as an in-joke about a certain aspect of
Dukat's character, but the rest you may enjoy.
I would also recommend "Cardassian Heat" (though, personally, I didn't
particularly care for the Kira-gets-off-on-being-raped subtext),
"Halfway" and "Skin Deep". They're all on (just) Ariana's page, and if
you want to read "S&H" give me a holler and I'll e-mail it to you
(it's 300K, with 16 parts).
Laura
--
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
I live in New York and Massachusetts, but that is because when I'm in
the South I wander around wondering where I can get the _New York
Times_, and when I'm in the North I wander around wondering where I
can get some okra, and I would rather think about some okra than the
_New York Times_.
Roy Blount, Jr.
Stephen Ratliff
Aleph Press (al...@netcom.com) wrote:
: A note someone made in the P/C C/P thread made me think. It's easy to
: talk about stories about characters you like. I like Q stories I wouldn't
: give the time of day to if they were about Chakotay. But what's really,
: really impressive is stories you like about characters you don't. That
: takes work!
:
: So, what are the stories you most like about characters you normally
: don't like at all?
:
: So. What stories do you like about characters you hate?
Well, like many people, I just can't see a Neelix Romance in any way
shape or form. Then Jaeti proved that there was a way. Her "Captain's
Nightmare" proved that it was. In fact I even wrote a review of it.
Stephen
--
Stephen Ratliff CS Major, Radford University.
srat...@runet.edu Radford, Virginia 24142-7496
rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc's polite target. Marrissa Stories Author
http://www.cs.runet.edu/~sratliff/
http://www.cs.runet.edu/~sratliff/FAQs/ FAQ Maintainer and
http://www.cs.runet.edu/~sratliff/index/ Index Maintainer for
http://aviary.share.net/~alara/ alt.startrek.creative
"The only reason they haven't killed me is that I'm part of their
victory celebration. 7:00, Dukat makes a speech, 8:30, cake and
raktagino, 8:45, execute the Ferengi."
-Rom, DS9 "Sacrifice of Angels"
Hazelnut
I know this discussion has hit some sensitive nerves for people,
but I find it fascinating and I hope it continues. However, some of the
topics discussed are fairly complex, and although I have been thinking
about them a lot, I don't have a reply ready. So instead I'm going to
talk about what I personally like in a romance, and then describe some of
my favorite het romances. I like both het and slash, and also like
non-romance stories. I picked het because it was helpful to have a
smaller number of s tories to pick from. I also had the idea of playing
the gender-switching game and trying to figure out which stories still
worked for me. In some cases I did this mentally, but I ran out of
energy, so I won't try to describe the results.
My primary requirement for a good romance is that there has to be
a strong story *apart* from the romance. For this reason, I avoid the
romance genre. Why is this my primay requirement? Well, I find stories
which focus exclusively on romance to be bor ing. Why this is true is
hard to say, but here's some thoughts.
A secondary plot is necessary because it reveals the *character*
of the characters in ways that don't get revealed by romance alone. (I'm
referring to the non-romance plot as the "secondary plot" for convenience,
but actually it's usually the romance wh ich is the secondary plot.) How
people relate to each other romantically shows *one* side of their
personality, but the variety of events in the secondary plot can show many
other sides of their personality.
A secondary plot is necessary to space out the growth of the
romance properly. At the beginning of a typical romance story, you have
two people who aren't together, and may even be total strangers. As the
story progresses, they grow to know each other, become attracted to each
other, and eventually, they end up together. In real life, this often
happens in very mundane ways. People get to know each other by going out
to dinner, seeing a movie, another dinner, going for a walk, indulging in
various ho bbies together, etc... Unless the author is really talented,
in fiction I want to read about more exciting events than these.
My secondary requirement for romance is that I like both
participants. I also need a reason to believe they are attracted to each
other, and would be happier together. With trek fanfiction, things are
complicated (or simplified) because we enter the st ory with preexisting
perceptions of the characters from the series. I'm pretty flexible about
who I can see with who, but there are some cases where I can't leave my
pre-established opinions behind. Kira-Dukat is one such area. A lot of
K/Du fans have been posting interesting things to this thread, and if they
were posting about just about any other pairing, I'd follow up by reading
their stories. But, in this case, I just can't.
Now, here's some of my favorite stories:
The Paris Journals by Carly Hunter The Paris Journals are a series of
stories written in first person from Paris's point of view. Individually
each stands alone. Taken together, they cover the often changing
relationship between Paris and the original character, Caitlin Matthews.
Caitli n is just as interesting as Paris, and just as screwed up in
certain ways. Every time it seems she and Paris will work things out,
life throws them a big curve ball. I especially want to mention two
stories. Both about children, but they're very differ ent from each
other.
Incubation (Vol III): In a way, this could be considered one of the less
creative stories, since it is a retelling of the TNG episode (the one
where Deanna Troi mysteriously becomes pregnant and then has a child who
ages rapidly). However, it was IMO be tter done than the TNG episode, and
for me it was one of the most *fun* stories in the series. (BTW, it just
occurred to me that Carly may have thought up the plot independently of
the TNG episode. If so, I apologise.)
Madeleine (Vol IX): In contrast, this was one of the *least* fun stories,
because it dealt with a very painful topic (miscarriage) in a very
realistic manner. But while it wasn't "fun", I found it to be one of the
most impressive story in the series, an d very rewarding to read.
Out of the Past and T'Kuht Rising by Macedon
In this case I'm thinking not of Tuvok and Janeway, but of the
relationship between Macedon's original characters Sokar and Ioanna.
Usually we think of romance as being about two people getting together,
but I think describing an existing relationship ca n also be very
romantic, especially when the people change and grow over the course of
the story. Furthermore, T'Kuht Rising had so many positive qualities that
I had to mention it!
Carolyn Fulton's stories (sorry, blanking out on titles here... Catalysts
and Crucibles comes to mind, but there are others I wanted to remember
and can't think of)
I like Carolyn's stories because I think her characterizations of Kira and
Odo are right on. But, the thing I like best of all about her stories is
the way she adds details about Bajoran culture and about Kira and Odo's
pasts.
A la Q by Kellie Matthews-Simmons and Julia Kosatka
This isn't a Q story, but a Picard story where Q sticks Picard in a small
southern town in our time. Picard ends up taking a job as a fry cook in a
restaurant, and developing a relationship with the owner. The owner is a
talented artist who lacks the se lf confidence to pursue her art, but in
part due to Picard's encouragement, she ends the story with a renewed
commitment to following her dreams.
Jigsaw by Mizmac
This story features all the TNG characters, but especially Riker, and a
mystery set following the destruction of the Enterprise in Generations.
I't set partly in the past, and partly in the "present", and covers past
and current relationships for Riker.
This was fun... I've been lurking for a long time, and there are so many
authors whose stories I'd like to praise that I get intimidated by the
backlog and don't know where to start. If nothing else, this thread gave
me a place to focus. And even though I didn't respond to the specific
points made in the discussions, I have been thinking about them.
--Hazelnut
Hazelnut
Lost the header, but Peg Robinson at some point said:
>You commented that, by avoiding cross-gender role assumptions, slash is able to
>provide powerful romances where both characters are strong *and* vulnerable.
>True enough. You then go on to say that most het romance falls into the
>predictable patterns. Also true enough--however you at least seem to be
>implying that the patterns are not there in slash.
>
>I'd have to disagree with that. In all but a very few works I've read--and I
>do read slash even though it isn't my first-choice trip, as I find it
>interesting--anyway, in all but a few peices the classic strong/weak,
>contained/vulnerable, emotionally needy/nurturing maternal-paternal, yadda,
>yadda, yadda exist, as do the traditional "Romance formula" motifs including
>most of those of hurt-comfort, seduction, passionate conquest...all the old
>warhorses are there in slash, as they are in het.
I agree with this. Let me choose a favorite slash romance of mine as
an example; namely, "Turning Point" by Killashdra. This story lacks
my strongest personal preference in romance, which is that there be
a plot in addition to the romance. Yet I really loved the story. The
main *point* of this story is the dynamic between the seducer (Kirk) and
the seduced (Spock), and the aftermath of the events. So yes, I definitely
see traditional dynamics in some slash stories.
Peg then goes on to say:
>By altering the gender pairing, even a fairly new writer can get away with
>using very traditional material, and have it look fresh, uncliched, honest and
>perceptive...
>
>I'm not trying to insult slash writers, or their works. But when they choose
>slash, they come in with a powerful advantage that het writers *do not have.*
>They can use old formula material, and have it look totally and startlingly new
>and complex. Where a het writer will *instantly* be nailed for trotting out
>old cliches, the slash writer can use those cliches in the way they probably
>*first* appeared to readers when they showed up in het-romances...as
>passionate, vivid, meaningful material dealing with relationship and
>life-choice.
>
> The het writer *has* to go far beyond that if he or she wants to appear
>equally insightful and non-formulaic. It takes a fair amount of work for a het
>writer to take something as fundamentally patterned as a fictional courtship,
>and make it anything more than formula. You have to stretch like crazy,
>because it's been done a million times, in a million variations, and every
>reader in the world can nail the cliches as there is no gender-twisting optical
>illusion in place to hide the formula. By changing the gender, you alter the
>context and the assumptions, and immediately alter the reader's response.
>Leave the gender assumptions in place and you'd damned well better have
>something new, provocative, or at least fresh and compelling to say about your
>characters and their lives, or your readers will sigh and pitch your latest
>Magnum Opus in the delete bin along with a dozen other "Love's Mortal Anguish"
>rip-offs.
Or, as others have summarized, "Slash hides romantic cliches better than
het." This is a significantly different claim than the first paragraph I
quoted. The presence of general patterns in romantic relationships is
*not* the same as clicheed, bad writing. (That's a point Peg herself
addresses in a later post, but I wanted to point it out here.) In the
example I chose ("Turning Point"), I see traditional *patterns*, but to me
the story did *not* seem clicheed.
I had a *really* hard time figuring out how to respond to that, and
eventually I realized why. It's because while the *presence* of romantic
cliches depends on the writer, the reader's *reaction* to those cliches
depends on the reader. I can evaluate what I think of the overall state
of slash writing, but I don't have a broad enough knowledge of how readers
react to slash to address that. I can only answer it for myself. I will
answer it, but first I'm going to digress.
Some time ago I read a story by Kate Wilhelm which was called "Forever
Yours, Anna." I really liked the story. It's about a man who receives a
set of letters. Through the letters he reads about a woman named Anna,
who is having an affair with a mysterious man. The protagonist falls in
love with her through her letters. Throug various events, we realize this
is a time travel story. The protagonist meets Anna and pursues a
relationship with her, despite knowing the future from her letters, and
knowing she will leave him. There's more to the story than I can easily
describe in this short paragraph. As I said, I really liked the story.
But, at some point a few days after I read the story, it hit me that I
probably would *not* have liked the story as much if the genders had been
reversed. If the genders were reversed, I would have likely seen the
protagonist's acceptance of betrayal as weakness rather than love and
generosity. Why? Because in real life, my perception is that more women
put up with being cheated on or used than men do, and that affected how I
saw the story. It was actually quite a shock to me to realize how much
gender stereotypes determined my reaction to the story.
Now for a trek example. In a previous post, I named "A la Q" as a
favorite het romance. I tried to imagine if the story would still work
for me if the genders of Picard and Rena Taylor. I'd like to emphasize
that this is a *highly* subjective test, and I certainly don't expect
everyone to reach the same conclusions. But, what I found was that for
me, this story didn't work with the genders flipped. Rena is a great
original character. She's intelligent, capable, educated, extremely
artistically talented, funny, and sexy. But, she has a lot of insecurity
which prevents her from following her dream of being an artist. In a
story which is overall incredibly rich in detail, the reasons for this
insecurity don't really get developed very much. I personally didn't find
that odd for a *female* character, but I would have required more
justification for that type of insecurity in a male character. YMMV.
OK, so what's my point? My point is that I react differently to the same
behavior depending on the sex of the person performing that behavior. I
think of myself as egalitarian, but there are times when cultural
assumptions affect me in ways I don't realize, and gender *does* make a
big difference in my response.
Now back to slash. Because I respond differently to the same behavior
depending on gender, there may be cases where a slash story seems new and
original simply by being slash. But, Peg, I honestly think you're
exaggerating the degree to which this happens. I have seen horribly
cliched het and slash, and I have seen truly excellent het and slash.
Furthermore, I think you're exaggerating the degree to which "familiar
overall pattern" equals "cliche."
I also don't think gender perceptions always make slash easier. There are
cases where gender perceptions work in favor of het fiction, and cases
where they work in favor of slash fiction. It depends on the specific
themes being addressed.
Following the post I just responded to were some great posts discussig
what makes a story original vs formula, and how to bring originality
to themes that have been around for ages. Great stuff, but it hasn't
really sunk in yet.
--Hazelnut
Ariana
Aleph Press <al...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<alephEn...@netcom.com>...
> As for K/Du... I have to admit, I have read exactly two K/Dus. One was
> set during Dukat's madness, was recently posted, and was excellent. The
> other was kind of a PWP about Kira and dukat having sex and arguing about
> it, and I kind of felt it fell into a stereotype of "the man is attracted
> to his dangerous enemy, and makes his attraction known; the woman doesn't
> want to admit that she is attracted back, and argues about it, but she
> really wants him so bad there's a puddle in her pants, but she's not
> mature enough to just admit this and either get over it or accept it,
> she's got to argue about it and deny it when it's clearly true."
Hmm... this sounds like my "Wow". Except, of course, "Wow" was a parody, so
I'm sure Alara didn't take it seriously if that's what she read. :)
Strangely enough, there aren't that many K/Du PWPs around... yet. (plenty
of Dukat PWPs, though)
> for; stuff like that) is very, very strong with that pairing. Now, I
> don't know how often you guys *do* fall into that pattern-- as I said, I
> haven't read much over the past year-- but one K/Du I read fell into that
> pattern, and the other one wasn't really a K/Du, as Dukat threatened to
> rape Kira but never did and then she shot him.
That's probably why you enjoyed "Bittersweet Revenge" - no chance of a het
romance there. :)
> Kira,
> as fiery as she is, seems to me to be looking for True Love-- hot sex
> with her worst enemy wouldn't interest her. So it would have to be *very*
> well written to interest me. But all that being said, and with my biases
> in mind, are there any K/Dus you think I would like anyway?
"The Agreement" by myself and a few others might meet your criteria.
Another possibility is "Skin Deep", which benefits from some original
thinking by Marlissa Campbell. Both of these are serious stories which make
a good effort to explain reasons why Kira could possibly be attracted to
her "worst enemy".
We cannot debate the "Kira would never sleep with Dukat" issue, because
that applies to just about every pairing (and slash ones in particular)
and, afaik, this isn't what we're talking about. However, both of the
stories mentioned in the previous paragraph do a good job, imo, of setting
up a situation where the K/Du element makes sense.
I can also suggest my own "Halfway" and Eva Enblom's "Cardassian Heat",
which are admittedly both set at a time (during season 4) when Dukat was
Kira's political ally to some extent. They do dwell heavily on Cardassian
pheromones, though, so you might want to avoid them if the idea of Kira
having hot sex with her worst enemy truly repulses you. :))
However, as I said in another post, I'm sincerely not sure if there is such
a thing as totally original writing when conceiving a romance. If your
romance is incidental to the overall plot of the story (my "Babylon"
wouldn't suffer from losing the K/Du element), then you have all latitude
for an original story (though the old
setup-problem-solution-problem-solution-end line seems to apply to most
stories).
But if the story is *just* a romance, there's a limit, imo, to how creative
you can be as far as the structure goes. The ultimate goal is always the
same - to pair Kira and Dukat, or Kira and Odo, or Janeway and Chakotay, or
Picard and Crusher... or Paris and Kim, or Kirk and Spock... well you get
the picture. We're talking about a very limited genre here - that's no
excuse for bad writing, and definitely no excuse for bad characterisation,
which I think was Peg's original point (or was it?). But truly original
plotting is, imo, a bit difficult under these circumstances.
Ariana
--
For Star Trek stories and lists of Cardassian "Romances":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ariane/
(Updated Jan 31, 1998)